Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORTSEA HARBOUR COMPANY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 26 July.

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 26 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Military Installations (Security)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Greenham common site and other military installations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security situation at Greenham common air base; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Security at all military installations is under constant review. The high security areas within defence establishments, including that at RAF Greenham common, are very comprehensively protected.

Mr. Greenway: How were two women able to live undetected inside the perimeter fence for almost a week recently? Why do the police seem to stand by while so-called peace women cut the chain link fencing and thereby gain access to the base, putting the defence of Britain last and their own eccentric behaviour first?

Mr. Stanley: The evidence on the ground does not substantiate the claims of the ladies in question that they spent a week in that particular place. A distinction needs to be drawn between the protection of outer perimeters and of the high security areas. Although we divert as much as we reasonably can by way of finance and manpower to the protection of the outer perimeter fences, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that the key issue at Greenham common is the proper protection of the high security area, and, as I said, that has been comprehensively protected.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the security of our entire nation, never mind Greenham common air base, is at stake, that these horrific weapons are a menace to everybody, and that the majority of British people want to be rid of them? Does he further realise that his viewpoint on this matter is even worse than the security at Greenham common? The right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised just how deeply the British people feel about these horrific weapons.

Mr. Stanley: I do not know which general election the hon. Gentleman fought last year, but it does not seem to have been the one that was fought by my right hon. and hon. Friends, when the British people gave a decisive mandate in favour of the Government's policies.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise again, for the benefit of the House, the difference between the outer and inner perimeters? Will he confirm that no one has penetrated anywhere near those parts of the base which really matter?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The point that he makes is correct. I can also confirm that there has been no penetration of the high security area of Greenham common.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has it been made clear to the American forces, in the terms of the Secretary of State's recent written reply to me, that their powers in relation to trespassers in these bases do not exceed those of the ordinary citizen under the common law and that their liabilities correspond?

Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the responsibility for informing American service men of their obligations under United Kingdom law rests with the American commander, and I am sure that they have been fully informed of the requirements and limitations of United Kingdom legislation.

Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles will continue to be deployed on practice runs outside the base at Greenham common, thereby emphasising that Greenham common is nothing more than a bomb-proof garage and underlining the pointlessness of the protest?

Mr. Stanley: I can confirm that off-base training deployment will continue. That is the Government's firm policy.

Mr. Strang: As the missiles are currently deployed outside the base, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are consulted in advance of the training exercises? As no live missiles are being carried, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government would be able to veto any decision to take live missiles out of Greenham common?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made it clear on many occasions that no live missiles will be deployed for training purposes. I assure him that the off-base training deployment takes place after the closest consultation and liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an apposite word in the English language to describe those who deliberately undermine the safety and security of the nation of which they are citizens? Can he recall what it is?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I fully take the point that he makes.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not a fact that at the end of the day the British Government's writ does not run in Greenham common and that ultimate security and control over the firing of these missiles lie with the United States Government? Is the Minister aware that recently the chief of staff of the United States army, General Meyer, admitted in a Congressional Committee hearing that missiles can at times of tenson and emergency be fired by the theatre commander? How does that square with the Government's attempt to pretend that they have a veto over the firing of the cruise missiles?

Mr. Stanley: That reference to General Meyer has been made before. I have read his statement carefully, and I have found that it is not open to the construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put upon it. The United Kingdom's position is exactly as has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that no cruise missiles in this country can be fired or launched without her consent.

Trident

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The running costs of the Trident force must be to some extent speculative at this time, but as a percentage of the defence budget it is unlikely to be significantly different from the present cost of Polaris; that is, some 1·5 per cent. each year.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that the cost of Trident increases by about £25 million for every 1 cent fall of the pound against the dollar? As the Government have admitted that they have no control over the way in which the dollar reacts in the world economy, why are they prepared to write a blank cheque for nuclear missiles to provide Americans with jobs, but are not prepared to write a blank cheque to sustain Britain's coal reserves?

Mr. Heseltine: The answer, briefly, is that the Government believe that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to have an ultimate deterrent. Short of facing the Soviet Union with the hon. Gentleman, I can think of no other more effective ultimate deterrent.

Mr. Dixon: Does the Secretary of State agree that Trident is a complete waste of money? Had Trident been in service two years ago during the Falklands dispute, it would not have deterred Galtieri, but it would have made it impossible to send a task force to the south Atlantic. The money to be spent on Trident will be at the expense of the surface fleet. Will the Government change their mind and cancel this useless project?

Mr. Heseltine: No, the Government will not change their mind. We expect the spending on the conventional navy to be higher in each year of this decade than it was when the Government were first elected.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not essential that the Government should carry through their plan to acquire

Trident for two reasons: first, that we cannot be sure that Polaris will be effective in penetrating hostile defences of the sort that are likely to be deployed in the mid 1990s; and, secondly, that there is no alternative to Trident which will be effective and cost less money?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is, of course, perfectly correct. The one question on which the Labour party does not agree is the scale of the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Johnston: Does not the possession of Trident assume its unilateral use without the agreement of the United States? If it does not mean that, why have Trident?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that it is a totally independent British system. The whole purpose of the possession of such a system is deterrence, not use.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Trident programme is on time and will not be affected by internal wranglings at British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I had noted comments of the kind that might have prompted her question. I believe that we shall carry through the Trident programme as we have planned.

Mr. James Lamond: When contemplating spending thousands of millions of pounds on Trident, even if the money is spent over several years, does not the Secretary of State's conscience bother him when he looks at the television programmes about the starving children in the Third world?

Mr. Heseltine: My conscience would bother me a great deal more if I looked at the threat of the Soviet Union and did not ensure that this country was adequatedly defended.

Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the running costs of the present strategic nuclear force are under 0·1 per cent. of our gross national product? Is that not a remarkably low price to pay for the preservation of peace? Will not exactly the same arguments apply to Trident?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not seen that statistic. I am sure that it is soundly based. I believe the House realises that the running costs of Trident are likely to be broadly equivalent to the costs that were appropriate to the running of Polaris. As the Labour Government ran Polaris for such a significant time and and in secret modernised it with the Chevaline process, I had assumed that, on this issue at least, we would be able to find commmon accord with the Labour Party.

Mr. Madden: Why is the Secretary of State so coy about the costs of Trident? Does he agree that, if the Trident programme were abandoned, the National Health Service could meet the real needs of the people, we could have houses for those who are in need of housing and give decent pensions to the people?

Mr. Heseltine: We would have a Government who would sell out the country's basic interests for each cheap promise that the Labour party is capable of designing.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State saying that the comments by a former chairman of Vickers—that


there is difficulty in finding the sort of skilled staff needed for the Trident programme and that the dismissal of a former managing director of Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness is a disaster for the Trident programme—are incorrect? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible to bring in the Trident programme on the time scale that was originally suggested?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I have seen the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He will be aware that the responsibility for the management of that yard must lie with British Shipbuilders. It is for British Shipbuilders to answer the detailed questions and to be sure that it has the management necessary to carry out the decisions.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that we understand why he is frightened to put a figure on the running costs of Trident.? Will he confirm that the running and support costs of Polaris come to about £600 million per year? Will he also confirm that it is reasonable to infer that the costs for Trident will certainly not be less than £600 million?

Mr. Heseltine: If I had to confirm the figures in which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to believe and upon which he presumably bases his totally indefensible defence policies, I might feel some concern; but, as the right hon. Gentleman's figures are much closer to 300 per cent. of the actual costs, they show how wildly inaccurate he is.

Chiefs of Staff Committees

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for policy examination and co-ordination by members of the service chiefs of staff committees in respect of defence policy aspects affecting the three services.

Mr. Heseltine: The changes described in the White Paper "The Central Organisation for Defence", are designed, among other things, to improve the Ministry's ability to reach the best defence-wide solutions. The chiefs of staff committee will continue to be the forum in which the chief of defence staff, as principal military adviser to the Government, seeks the advice of the service chiefs of staff. They will have full access to the advice of the new, unified defence staff; and they will have sufficient single-service staff to enable them to direct the work of their own services, as chairmen of the service executive committees.

Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend made a full statement about this matter last week, and we now have the White Paper, but does he agree that the brouhaha about the change has been somewhat overdone? As he said, there is no net reduction in the role of the chiefs of staff. As they will have complete access to the new unified defence policy appraisal committee, will that not strengthen rather than weaken their intrinsic role?

Mr. Heseltine: Any change brings uncertainty in advance. The chiefs of staff have a responsibility to point out their anxieties. I admire them for doing that. I take my hon. Friend's point that, under the new arrangements for the Ministry of Defence, if anything, they will have an enhanced opportunity to influence defence policy. That will emerge as the new system shakes down.

Mr. McNamara: If the Secretary of State is correct and the role of the service chiefs is enhanced, why have they been making all this row?

Mr. Heseltine: As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), there is always uncertainty in advance of change. It is perfectly legitimate for those who are the custodians of the single services to express any reservations that they may have. I must point out, however, that the chiefs of staff have now given a clear commitment that they will work for the system, and they believe that it is workable.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet Lord Carrington to discuss the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's area of operations.

Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. There are no plans to enlarge the NATO area of operations.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the continuing threats to Western interests in the Gulf region require NATO to review its policy east of Suez instead of leaving it to the involvement of some member states?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he raises an important point. In the conduct of foreign affairs, the reality is that NATO will not act as a unified body in areas which are not immediately linked to its geographic base.

Mr. Douglas: In any discussions with Lord Carrington, will the Secretary of State discuss our position in relation to the British flag fleet and whether we should have to call on NATO partners to sustain and support us across the Atlantic in times of emergency? Additionally, will he say what strain support for the Falklands puts on our naval resources?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the costs of the Falklands war were added to the defence budget. The Falklands losses are being replaced out of additional finance provided by the Exchequer.

Mr. Canavan: By taxpayers.

Mr. Heseltine: Of course, by taxpayers—taxpayers who elected this Government to govern the country and rejected Opposition policies.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is fully aware that we are carefully considering the points that have been made in that context, particularly by the Select Committee, and will respond in proper time.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the establishment of NATO has proved to be a monument to peacekeeping, the time has come for a fundamental overhaul of the entire management structure. of NATO, which has not been studied for some time?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. I hope that the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, will have an opportunity to consider these matters and to put them to the appropriate political forums that control NATO on behalf of the Alliance.

Mr. McNamara: We welcome the Secretary of State's further commitment to the fact that NATO will have no out-of-area role as such. Will he comment upon statements in the press about joint planning with the United States Government on joint naval operations in the Gulf and give a commitment that they will not be carried out?

Mr. Heseltine: That would be an extraordinarily irresponsible commitment for me to give, but I should not want to draw the alternative conclusion. It is apparent that, in a world of uncertainty and danger, like-minded nations discuss potentialities and hypotheses very much in the hope that they will never arise. They would be much criticised if circumstances deteriorated to the point of an active war and we had made no plans.

Mr. Yeo: When my right hon. Friend meets Lord Carrington, will he urge him to consider the need to make NATO as cost-effective and efficiently managed as possible, particularly with regard to the large number of civilians employed by the organisation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what I said a moment ago. I take the same approach. It is critical that, with these vast sums of money that we manage in the defence budget, we should always ensure value for money and that as much as possible of the money finds its way to the front line.

Mr. Holt: I accept that NATO is not expanding, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to last night's overseas broadcast by Russia, Greece has now abrogated nine of its 11 NATO treaties? If a similar Socialist Government came to power in this country, is it not likely that a similar shrinkage would occur here?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not rely wholly for my political information on Soviet broadcasts about the policies of NATO. My hon. Friend might be best advised to pursue his inquiries with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Nuclear Deterrence

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restate his definition of the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Member to the section of the Defence Estimates 1981 headed "Nuclear Weapons and Preventing War."

Mr. Barron: What does the Minister of State consider to be the chief deterrent nowadays? The arms race has changed. We have moved from mutual armed destruction to the use of inter-continental ballistic missiles, and it is predicted that technology will take us into the age of space-based war. What constitutes the deterrent now—nuclear weapons or the arms race itself?

Mr. Stanley: The essence of deterrence is to have sufficient capability to make it clear to any potential aggressor that it is not worth while attacking this or any other NATO country.

Mr. Johnston: The Minister would presumably argue that we have effective influence over the United States through NATO. If so, is it necessary for us to duplicate the American nuclear deterrence system? Does not the insistence of Britain and France on maintaining an independent deterrent encourage other countries to do likewise?

Mr. Stanley: I disagree. We have maintained our independent strategic capability because Britain is one of the very few countries, apart from the United States, which has that capability. That fact is welcomed by both the United States and our European NATO allies.

Type 23 Frigates

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the first of class order for the type 23 frigate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Negotiations with the lead shipbuilders, Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd., are in progress. We shall make an announcement on the placing of the order as soon as possible.

Mr. Duffy: Given the customary year that will elapse before the placing of an order for a second of class, the dire need for new orders in the yards, the needs of the fleet for a modern post-Falklands frigate, and the lack of orders for major surface units over the past two years, are there not now grounds for moving more urgently?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has always taken a deep and sincere interest in the size of the Navy, and this aspect in particular. We will place orders for the new type 23 at the rate of about three a year, after the initial gap after the placing of the first order. The Government have ordered 30 new ships since 1979. We now have 55 operational destroyers and frigates, and we intend to reduce that number to 50 by the 1990s.

Mr. Denzil Davies: What is the latest estimate of the cost of the type 23 frigate? Is it still Government policy that there shall be no mid-life modernisation of these frigates, which are presumably to be disposable?

Mr. Lee: We are talking of about £110 million for a type 23. We hope to get about four type 23s for the cost of three type 22s.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is shared on this side of the House? Will the defence and hitting capability of these ships be an improvement on the present ones?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I know that there is wide concern about the size of our fleet of destroyers and frigates. In terms of weapons, the type 23 will be equipped with towed array sonar, an EH101 or a Sea King with Sting Ray torpedoes, vertical lauch Seawolf and the Harpoon surface-to-surface guided weapon.

Nuclear Tests (Medical Effects)

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the medical effects of the British nuclear testing programme.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The National Radiological Protection Board study to determine the incidence of mortality in United Kingdom service men and civilians who participated in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear test programmes is progressing to plan.

Mr. Fatchett: As the Australians have already established a Royal Commission and the American courts have already awarded damages to those affected by nuclear testing, and given that the British study may take three years, will the Government ask the NRPB to produce an interim report to allay the genuine fears about this?

Mr. Pattie: I do not think that the NRPB, which is an independent body, would accept the relevance of an


interim report. It has given the Government an estimate of the time needed to complete the study. It remains our view that that is the period that will be required.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all British service men who may have been affected by radiation from those tests are aware of the survey and are being offered the opportunity to present their own medical evidence?

Mr. Pattie: If my hon. Friend knows of any cases in which there are doubts I should be grateful if he would tell me about them. The NRPB is making strenuous efforts to ensure that the survey is as widely drawn as possible.

Mr. Hirst: If the inquiry concludes that service men have been adversely affected by radiation in the Pacific tests, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those affected, in particular the widow of one such service man in my constituency, will receive compensation?

Mr. Pattie: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to give an assurance ahead of publication of the study or in relation to particular cases. The Government will consider the best way to proceed in the light of the conclusions of the study.

Mr. Alton: Is it not thoroughly unfair that Australian service men who served side by side with British service men at Maralinga and elsewhere have been able to test their claims in the courts whereas that right has not been afforded to British service men? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Pattie: As I have explained before, we have no plans to change the legislation. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the legislation provides, so that is my answer.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not extremely unfair that service men are expected to write to the Department? Why does the Department not inform them of the inquiry so that they can present their evidence? What on earth are the Government afraid of'?

Mr. Pattie: We are not afraid of anything. We are not talking about service men but about ex-service men. The NRPB has access to service records and is currently going through them. We are simply saying that anyone who wants to write in as well is welcome to do so.

Europe (NATO—Warsaw Pact Forces)

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on relative North Atlantic Treaty Organisation — Warsaw pact conventional strengths in Europe in the light of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation document "The Conventional Balance in Europe."

Mr. Stanley: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the NATO document "NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons". The relative conventional strengths portrayed in that publication confirm the extent of the Soviet threat and the need to maintain a strong commitment to NATO.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister agree that that document reveals that there are 58 fewer front-line divisions in the Warsaw pact than NATO originally estimated? As the NATO figure does not include the

French or Spanish forces, will he confirm that we are significantly closer than the Government have so far admitted to possessing adequate conventional forces to countervail a Russian attack in central Europe?

Mr. Stanley: I agree that the balance is constructed on a different basis from that which has applied in the defence Estimates. I believe that it is reasonable to include the French forces in the overall balance. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that we can conclude that the conventional balance is entirely satisfactory. As a result of spending undertaken by this Government some progress has been made towards redressing the conventional balance, but I draw attention to the fact that in the foreword to the report the secretary-general draws attention to the need for continuing efforts to maintain our security.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the NATO Alliance formed in 1947 has provided a very good protective shield around Europe? Does he further agree that we should endeavour to be not just a strong member but the strongest member of that Alliance?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend suggests that we should devote resources to defence in excess of those devoted by our American friends, but we make a stronger contribution to NATO than our fellow members in Europe. That is one of the excellent results of the Government's defence policy.

Type 22 Frigates

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be able to announce the placing of the two orders for type 22 frigates.

Mr. Lee: The tenders for these ships lapsed before the usual detailed examination of such factors as overheads and productivity had been completed. We are therefore seeking new tenders for type 22 numbers 13 and 14 and expect to receive replies in September. Once these have been clarified we hope to place orders before the end of this year.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend recall promising in the House that the tenders would be awarded before last Christmas? Is he aware that he gives disappointing news, not only for my constituents at Vosper Thornycroft, but for the constituents of other hon. Members in the naval shipbuilding yards?

Mr. Lee: I recognise that the placing of the orders for the type 22s has taken longer that we anticipated. We are looking for the best value for money. We recognise the critical importance of the orders to the respective yards. That is why we take the matter so seriously.

Mr. Field: Will the Minister give due regard to the technical expertise that yards have shown in completing previous Ministry of Defence orders? Will he confirm that in that respect Cammell Laird has a record second to none?

Mr. Lee: I pay the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) generous tribute because I know how hard he has worked and campaigned for Cammell Laird, with some of my hon. Friends, to promote that shipyard's interests. I am happy to confirm that the Ministry of Defence has always been satisfied with the quality of work produced by Cammell Laird. However, I must say bluntly that, to put


it mildly, we are not best pleased by the fact that no work has been done on the type 42 destroyer for the last four weeks and that 130 men from Cammell Laird — a minority—are blockading the yard and the rig. That will not be attractive to any prospective customer, whether it is the MOD or anyone else.

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the successful testing of the Sea Eagle system, is my hon. Friend prepared to reconsider his decision to purchase the American Harpoon?

Mr. Lee: The Sea Eagle, which we saw launched successfully on television at the weekend, was the air-launched version. That will be in service. There is no argument about that. Harpoon is the surface-to-surface weapon for the Navy. We have no intention of changing our decision on that.

Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware of the expression that best is the enemy of the good? Is he aware that it is often necessary to put in an order early rather than to await perfection? Is he aware that his answer will therefore cause disappointment?

Mr. Lee: I appreciate that the announcement will cause a degree of disappointment. Nevertheless, competition is still wide open. On the export front we are hopeful that yards such as Vosper Thornycroft will be in a position to win some export orders.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for implementation of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.

Mr. Pattie: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 23 July.

Mr. Straw: The Government suffered a further humiliating defeat in the other place last week when Labour amendments requiring that the ROFs be privatised only as a single entity were approved. Do the Government now intend to accept those amendments or seek to reverse them?

Mr. Pattie: The Government expect to address the amendments made in another place when the Bill returns to this House in October. Therefore, the answer is that we shall not accept those amendments.

Mr. McNamara: Why will the Government not accept the will of the other place in this matter? We know of the great concern that the Government claim to have for democracy, Parliament and the rule of law. All that their Lordships are asking is that Parliament should approve of whatever regulations and schemes that the Secretary of State may make, because at the moment nobody knows what he will do, and he has a free hand to dispose of these valuable national assets. Why will they not accept that?

Mr. Pattie: These matters were considered in the House extensively and the will of the House was made known then.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative Benches there is still considerable support

for a decision that would allow the Ministry of Defence to sell some of the factories individually, rather than all of them collectively?

Mr. Pattie: I note what my hon. Friend has to say.

US Aircraft (Chemical Weapons)

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are equipped to use chemical weapons including binary munitions.

Mr. Stanley: No United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are either tasked or specially equipped to carry chemical munitions.

Mr. Cohen: I am pleased to hear that, but if the Government are serious about getting a chemical weapons ban—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is the Minister prepared — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] to tell the United States that the United Kingdom does not want its chemical weapons in this country, and that we will not allow any planes in this country to have those chemical weapons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Will he also tell the United States that he will provide no facilities and in no way countenance plans for a theatre chemical weapons war in this country or in Europe?

Mr. Stanley: I did not entirely hear the hon. Member's question, but there is no deployment of chemical weapons in this country.

Mr. Warren: Will my hon. Friend accept that, as one of the parliamentary party that yesterday had the opportunity to visit Porton Down, I feel that it is good to see the strenuous and correct efforts being made by this country to combat the tremendous threat that we are suffering from the Soviet Union, which has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons mounted against us?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the great severity of the Soviet offensive chemical capability, and I am also grateful for his tribute to the important defensive work done at Porton Down.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give a clear assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing American chemical weapons, binary or otherwise, to be established in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said. There is no deployment by the United States of chemical weapons in this country.

United States Navy (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that nuclear weapons based on United States vessels in United Kingdom territorial waters cannot be used without the approval of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Heseltine: The operations of United States vessels in British waters are covered by long-standing bilateral and Allied arrangements. We, like successive British Governments, are satisfied with these arrangements.

Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State accept that the majority of the public in this country are concerned about


the Government's answers that this is always by long-term agreement and understanding? Does he not understand that people want positive assurances from the Government that nuclear weapons based on ships in British territorial waters are on our land and will not be used if the United States of America is under threat? How can we assure the public that they will not be so used?

Mr. Heseltine: In the same way as all Labour and Conservative Governments since the war have succeeded in doing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the United States Government now have funding for an integrated plan for the targeting of all its nuclear weapons? How will Britain have any veto over certain weapons if they are part of an integrated plan?

Mr. Heseltine: We have the advantage of profound and wide-scale discussions with the United States about the use of all their levels of military capability. Our problem is that we have no such discussions with the Soviet Union, which has just the same scale of nuclear capacity. That is the one factor which the Labour party simply will not face.

United States Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any discussions have been held with representatives of the United States Administration about a possible West European role in its strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: Consultation between the United Kingdom and the United States on all aspects of defence policy is close and comprehensive, and has naturally been extended to include the implications of the strategic defence initiative announced by President Reagan in March 1983. The United States Government have made no proposals for west European involvement in the programme, although President Reagan has made it clear that there will be no lessening of the United States nuclear guarantee to Europe.

Mr. Cartwright: Can the Secretary of State say what implications for the Trident programme lie behind United States' activities over the strategic defence initiative?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer in precise terms about the conclusions of a development programme which it has not been determined shall proceed and which is very much at the exploratory and research stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hayes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NUM is making a complete mockery of the word negotiation if it is not prepared to make one single

concession? Will she confirm that there is a great future for economically produced coal, and the fact that we produce deep mined coal at £100 per tonne compared to £19 elsewhere is an absurdity?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that deep-mined coal is produced more cheaply elsewhere than in this country. I believe that the offer that Mr. MacGregor made in the recent negotiations was very reasonable, and I am very sorry that it was not accepted. The offer that the Government have made shows that there is a great future for the coal industry if it is accepted, with better pay, investment and compensation for voluntary redundancies than have ever been offered by a Government.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Lady give thought to the predicament of councils such as that in the city of Leicester, which was elected and re-elected on a programme of maintaining services for its citizens? Does she not recognise that the imposition of penalties through rate capping is a travesty of democracy and will certainly lead to a reduction in services, especially those most needed by the elderly, the disabled, the disadvantaged and those who are in desperate need of housing?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, in considering the level of expenditure it is necessary to consider also the interests of the taxpayers, the ratepayers, and those who are running small and larger businesses and who have to provide employment of the kind of which we all wish to see more. Their interests, too, must be taken into account.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of some of the speeches that we heard during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. I can remember the late Mr. Anthony Crosland making a speech about rates and saying, "the party is over."

Merchant Marine Fleet

Sir David Price: asked the Prime Minister what is the minimum size and mix of the merchant marine fleet that is necessary to be maintained under the British flag for reasons of national security.

The Prime Minister: At present the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet numbers some 820 ships. The Government keep under continuous and detailed review the requirements of Her Majesty's Forces for support by merchant ships when carrying out their roles in the NATO Alliance and elsewhere, and the availability of merchant ships with specifications capable of meeting those requirements. For reasons of security, details of the ships that could be needed cannot be given.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the height of the Falklands conflict there were more ships flying the Red Ensign than the White Ensign in the south Atlantic? Is she further aware that if the decline in the size and the mix of the British Merchant Navy continues she will be unable to call on the same merchant marine ever again in support of the Royal Navy?

The Prime Minister: I understand exactly my hon. Friend's concern. The decline of the merchant fleet has been due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in the world shipping market. I think that the shipping industry is perhaps best at identifying the most


profitable opportunities to keep its numbers as high as possible. I readily accept that the Merchant Navy is very important for our defence. It is also important to keep a merchant building capacity in this country, for strategic reasons.

Mr. Kinnock: Competition and other challenges are regular and continual factors. How does the right hon. Lady explain the fact that the British merchant fleet has been reduced by half since she became Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I gave the reasons in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). The decline in the merchant fleet is due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in world shipping markets. Against that background our shipping industry has done very well to create such large invisible earnings.

Mr. Kinnock: Are not the changes made in this year's Budget in allowances, taxation and investment in danger of accelerating that decline still further? Will the right hon. Lady halt those policies if she does not want to take the risk of sinking the British merchant fleet along with much of the British shipbuilding industry, and of losing £1,000 million in balance of payments earnings?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will readily accept that any changes in this year's Finance Bill cannot have had any effect on previous losses in merchant shipping—[Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman will also know, some final amendments were made during the passage of of the Finance Bill which were welcomed by the shipping industry.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Since Mr. Scargill——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that coastal shipping is an important ingredient of the British fleet? Why does the right hon. Lady not adopt the same policy towards our coastal shipping as the French and other members of the EC adopt to theirs and make it the exclusive province of the British flag fleet with British-built vessels?

The Prime Minister: The answer is that we are trying the world over to reduce the amount of protectionism that is practised, particularly in countries such as the United States and India. It would be far more beneficial to have free coastal shipping there than to protect our own very much smallers shores. Our fleet will do better when we can reduce the amount of protectionism. The step suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not give us very much, if any, advantage.

Engagements

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady realise that her economic and industrial policies are now in tatters? Given that fact, the number of long-term unemployed, the many thousands of young people who have not yet found their first job, and the many people living on the poverty line, what hope do her policies hold out?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about our economic policy. As I have said in the House before, gross domestic product is up 2·75 per cent. on the year earlier, industrial output is up 3·5 per cent. on the year earlier, total fixed investment has grown by 10 per cent. and we have had the lowest annual average figure for inflation for 15 years. [Interruption.] I could cite many other examples, but the Opposition have started to make a noise, because they do not want to hear. I accept that it will be difficult to reduce unemployment, because the number of people of working age is increasing at a faster rate than the number of jobs. However, there has been an improvement in the prospects for young people and the youth training scheme is one of the best in the world.

Mr. Jessel: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the election result in Israel? Does not the repeated stalemate there demonstrate the weakness of proportional representation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so vividly.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is at the moment asking Government Departments to come forward with cuts in expenditure for this year as well as for next year? Will she give the House her estimate of the outturn of inflation, as it must be clear that the 4·5 to 5 per cent. figure is bound to be exceeded? Even in the City people are advocating a 7·5 per cent. inflation outturn for this year.

The Prime Minister: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and other Ministers, are engaged in the public expenditure survey for next year, as is customary at this time of year. With regard to inflation forecasts for the end of the year, that will depend on how long the mortgage rate must remain at its higher level, which depends to some extent on the future of strikes.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is considering how higher education can best serve the future needs of industry? Does she agree that the gap in high technology skills that exists in the labour market must be filled as soon as possible with home-grown specialists if industry is to take full advantage of new opportunities in changing markets?

The Prime Minister: Yes Sir, but I have noticed recently much closer co-operation between universities and industries, especially regarding high technology. My hon. Friend knows that there are a number of science parks—I recently opened one at Warwick university—which are doing very well and securing the kind of co-operation that has been sorely needed.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: According to the Prime Minister's earlier answers, she insists on absolute commercial viability for the coal industry. On what morality or criteria does she totally reject her responsibility for the social viability of that industry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that social grants have always been given to the coal industry. They are a fundamental part of the financial structure. This Government have been more generous than any other in giving those grants to the industry and in


making special arrangements for redundancy payments. Those two are treated separately from other grants to the coal industry, such as grants for operating losses, which are extremely high.

Mr. John Browne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the collapse of the dock strike illustrates vividly that when Governments do not interfere, ordinary trade union members show very little wish to place their jobs in jeopardy in support of a political strike? Does she accept that there is now a crying need for the Government to provide for voluntary secret ballots, not merely for the election of officers, but wherever industrial action is contemplated, to enable trade union members to protect their jobs?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we shall debate trade union matters today, on which their Lordships thought that we had not gone far enough to protect the rights of ordinary members regarding the election of trade union officials. My hon. Friend will have noticed that in regions where a ballot of members of the National Union of Mineworkers was held and the majority voted to go back to work — that happened in Nottinghamshire where miners are back at work—they upheld the rules of the NUM rule book. They had a ballot and honoured the result.

Mr. McGuire: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the general election was held just over 12 months ago jobs were still being lost at the rate of 20,000 a month? Given her forecasts of upturns, will she tell the House what the net job loss is? Is it 20,000 a month or fewer?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman might have seen from the figures published last week, the number of people in work in the economy, including the estimated self-employed, is estimated to have risen by about 260,000 during the past year. The size of the working population is increasing faster than the number of extra jobs, so there is still an underlying increase in unemployment, which is given every month in the seasonally adjusted figures.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will estimate the cost to date of the police operations in connection with the current coal dispute.

The Prime Minister: It is the responsibility of each police authority to assess the cost incurred in policing the

dispute in the first instance. We have not so far required police authorities to submit running records of their costs, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently asked them to provide such information for the period up to 30 June.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever price is being paid, it is one that the British people are prepared to pay for as long as it takes to defend the rights of miners who wish to work? Does she agree that the miners are now being led by self-confessed Marxists, who are more concerned with pursuing section 3S of the NUM rule book—the overthrow of our free enterprise system—than they are with honouring rule 43, which provides for ballots before any strikes can take place?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One can never give in to violence and intimidation. If one does, it is the end to democracy in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that where there have been ballots in the National Union of Mineworkers, as in Nottingham, they have shown that people want to return to work; in some cases they have returned to work and are now turning cut coal. I notice that some time ago the Leader of the Opposition said in the House:
Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting?" —[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 522.]
That was in April. In July, the right hon. Gentleman said, outside the House,
There is no alternative but to fight.
I agree that we need a ballot.

Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister tell us how she can ignore the fact that thousands of families are in urgent need of help as a result of the strike? The Government cannot consider the cost to the coal industry of the planned reductions by herself and Mr. MacGregor until they take into account the social cost, which is rarely mentioned by her or by the Secretary of State for Energy. Why does she not consider the social cost to the mining industry?

The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is always a good social grant. The cost of voluntary redundancy, which is also borne by special grant, is about £250 million a year. The sums given are greater than those given by any previous Government. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, when the Whitehaven pit was closed, the miners said that they were satisfied with the money they received. The Government have fully taken care of the social cost, and I note that more mining jobs have been lost under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. The compensation given was not half as good.

Mr. Robin Walsh

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order arise out of Question Time? If not, I will take it immediately after the statement.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the answers to specific questions were far more informative and interesting than the answers given to other forms of questions, would you consider encouraging hon. Members to put down specific questions for Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter for hon. Members, but, of course, I believe that it is a good idea.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well, I will take it now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As you know, Mr. Speaker, during the past five months I have raised more than 120 questions in relation to the Prime Minister's links with Cementation and, of late, in relation to the case of a British national, Mr. Robin Walsh, who has been the subject of several written questions to the Secretaries of State for Defence, for the Home Department, and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Mr. Robin Walsh died in prison in Oman and was mistreated there——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I do not think that there can be any point of order for me, but if the hon. Gentleman will put his question I will see whether I can answer it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point of order that I wish to raise with you specifically, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I as a Member of this House tabled questions on the Order Paper, and the replies to those questions I gave to the Sunday Times, to The Observer and to "World in Action," and as a result of a court action brought by the Omani embassy in London last——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the arguments. What is the point of order for me as the Speaker?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As a result of those actions brought within the courts——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now abusing an opportunity. I ask him now to put to me a point on which I can rule. I cannot be concerned with any programme which may have been on television or any questions that may have been put to Ministers to which the hon. Gentleman has not had reasonable answers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Omani embassy in bringing that action was preventing me from carrying out my duty which was to ensure that the questions that I raised could be published by the organs of the British media, including "World in Action", which, as a result of pressure exerted on the Independent Broadcasting Authority last week, took a decision to require "World in Action"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman any further. I have given him three opportunities to put a

question to me. It is not a point of order —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman, I think, is dissatisfied with answers that he has received from Departments. He has other opportunities to raise this matter. If it is a matter of privilege, he can pursue it in the ordinary way, but I cannot hear him any further on this matter, which is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 136 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the last hon. Members to use parliamentary privilege in a proper way, may I put it to you that in my opinion we have today seen a grave misuse of that privilege, and I invite you to suspend that hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: The ploy used by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a legitimate parliamentary ploy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) used it himself.

The House having divided: Ayes 44, Noes 295.

Division No. 423]
[3.37 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Ashton, Joe
Pike, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Blair, Anthony
Redmond, M.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Eadie, Alex
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Eastham, Ken
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Raymond
Wareing, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Weetch, Ken


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Welsh, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, W. E.
Winnick, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Woodall, Alec


Hardy, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)



Janner, Hon Greville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Derek Fatchett and Dr. John Marek.


Loyden, Edward





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Alton, David
Benyon, William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Best, Keith


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashdown, Paddy
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Bright, Graham


Beith, A. J.
Brinton, Tim






Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Heddle, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hill, James


Budgen, Nick
Hind, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Hirst, Michael


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Hon Adam
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Johnston, Russell


Cope, John
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Corbett, Robin
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Corrie, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cranborne, Viscount
Kennedy, Charles


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Richard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lyell, Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil


Gale, Roger
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maclean, David John


Goodlad, Alastair
Madden, Max


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Major, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mather, Carol


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Harris, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus


Hayes, J.
Moore, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)





Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Murphy, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Neubert, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Newton, Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Oppenheim, Philip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Osborn, Sir John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stokes, John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sumberg, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wallace, James


Rooker, J. W.
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skeet, T. H. H.
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tim Sainsbury


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It relates to the point of order that I raised before.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot accept a further point of order on that matter. I have already ruled that I cannot rule on the question that he has put to me. I gave the hon. Gentleman three, perhaps four, opportunities to put a point of order to me which I could seek to answer, but he failed to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has not been our practice to accept the same motion twice on the same day, and I cannot accept that motion a second time today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Skinner: No, but it is about the same issue.

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I cannot rule on his point of order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seeking to raise the same point of order, I must give him the same answer. He is only wasting the time of the House. If he wishes to raise a different point of order, I shall hear it.

Mr. Skinner: It must be different because a different Member is raising it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. Is his point of order on the same subject as that raised by the hon. Member for Workington?

Mr. Skinner: It is on the same subject, that is for sure

Mr. Speaker: Then I cannot hear it.

Mr. Skinner: I want to raise it because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is being gagged.

Rate Support Grant

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1985–86. It contains my proposals for the rate support grant settlement in England, and my decisions on selective rate limitation under the Rates Act 1984.
I am today issuing to local authorities proposals for the main features of the RSG settlement for next year. Copies of the material sent to them are in the Libraries and the Vote Office. This early announcement should give authorities plenty of time to budget sensibly in 1985–86. It is the first time that I have been able to set out so much of the framework of the settlement so early in the year. I hope that this is welcomed. It is also the first time that the Rates Act provisions for constraining the rates — and hence the expenditure — of high-spending authorities have been available to the Government. They have strongly affected the overall shape of the settlement. This year's budgets show a continuing real terms increase in the level of local authority current expenditure. The Government remain committed to the constraint of public expenditure. This is essential if we are to put the economy on to a sound footing for the longer term. We must continue to seek economies.
For 1985–86, for the first time, the Rates Act enables me to start curbing the worst excesses of the highest spenders. Until now, even the lowest spenders have had to be asked to make significant savings because of the irresponsible behaviour of the minority of high spenders. The Rates Act makes it possible for me to begin to change that. As I promised at last year's settlement, it gives me the scope — within the overall continuing need for restraint—to set fairer targets for low spenders. At the same time, the Government are determined to ensure that these realistic targets are not overspent, and the holdback proposals reflect that determination.
First, rate limitation. The new powers given me by the Rates Act enable me to set rate limits for the worst overspenders and thus protect their ratepayers. I am today laying before the House a report describing the basis of selection of authorities for rate limitation. I will select for rate capping those authorities spending more than £10 million whose budgets for the current year are more than 4 per cent. above their targets, and more than 20 per cent. above their grant-related expenditure assessment. On the basis of these criteria, the following 18 authorities are designated: Basildon, Brent, Camden, the GLC, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, the Inner London education authority, Islington, Lambeth, Leicester, Lewisham, Merseyside, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southwark, south Yorkshire, and Thamesdown.
I am setting expenditure levels for these authorities which will form the basis of their rate limits. In most cases they will have to contain their expenditure at the same level in cash terms as their budget for 1984–85. In the case of the three authorities which are budgeting to spend more than 70 per cent. above GRE this year and which have increased their budgets by more than 30 per cent. since 1981–82 I am setting expenditure levels 1·5 per cent. below their effective 1984–85 budgets. These authorities are the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the London borough of


Greenwich. The 18 designated authorities are being formally notified of their expenditure levels. I shall of course consider any representations which they may wish to make to me asking for a redetermination of their expenditure level.
This announcement is good news for ratepayers. The 18 highest spending authorities will have their spending levels controlled. Furthermore, as I said during the passage of the Bill, because the Rates Act 1984 enables me to control the expenditure of the highest spenders, I can set fairer targets for the low spenders, as I promised earlier this year. For the current year, the maximum cash increase over 1983–84 budget is 3 per cent. For next year, I am proposing to allow most low spenders to increase their spending by 4·25 per cent. over budget this year. On the best estimate of the rate of inflation over the period—the GDP deflater— this should require no further real terms cuts from those authorities. This has been made possible only by the headroom provided by rate limitation. High spenders will have tougher targets, but no authority is asked for more than a 1·5 per cent. cash reduction on its 1984–85 budget.
Those targets add up to about £21·8 billion, which implies an increase in current expenditure provision in excess of £800 million. This takes account of the setting up of London Regional Transport—on last year's basis, the increase would be nearer £900 million. The equivalent increase for 1984–85 was some £500 million. The increase in the 1985–86 provision will be contained within the established aggregate public expenditure plans.
Those targets are therefore realistic, and must not be seen as an invitation to increase spending. For that reason, I am proposing a much tougher holdback tariff for the first percentage points of overspend. The tariff will entail reductions in block grant equivalent to 7p at ratepayer level for the first 1 per cent. of overspend, another 8p for the second percentage overspend, and another 9p which will be added for each 1 per cent. of spending after that. That is a strong deterrent to overspending, but I think there will be a wide recognition—at least on this side of the House—of the fairness of this proposal. I am proposing reasonable, realistic targets. It is only fair in return to expect that they will be met, and to take a firm line with anyone who sees this as an opportunity to boost spending.
The effect of these proposals on services provided by local authorities will depend on their ability to use resources efficiently. The Government look to local authorities to do their utmost to contain their pay and other costs and to manage their resources in a way that ensures that the best possible value for money is obtained.
Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £11·7 billion, about the same amount after adjustments as the corresponding figure for 1984–85. This represents a grant percentage of about 48·8 per cent. for 1985–86, compared with 51·9 per cent. this year. This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability to the local electorate.
I am now consulting local government on my proposals for targets, holdback and aggregate Exchequer grant before presenting a rate support grant settlement to Parliament at the end of the year. Consultation on grant distribution will take place in the autumn.
The Government remain determined to restrain the level of current expenditure of local government. We are

now seeing the benefits of the Rates Act. Because it allows us at last to get to grips with the excesses of the highest spenders, responsible low-spending authorities will no longer have to carry the can for them. As I promised, I am proposing fairer targets for them. My proposals mean that if authorities spend within their targets — the capped authorities will have to stay below their spending levels —the average rate increase in England should be lower than this year's average increase. This will be welcomed by hard-pressed ratepayers everywhere. I commend my proposals to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just announced an unprecedented and giant stride along the authoritarian path to central control and one that he will almost certainly live to regret? That is from a Government who came to office committed to rolling back the frontiers of the state. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not true to say that the Rates Act 1984 makes it easier for other authorities because of the magnitude of the cuts that he is expecting in 1985–86 which remain at something like £800 million, and the gap in 1986–87 between spending plans and his attitude, which is about £2·3 billion or 11 per cent. of what local authorities are spending? Is not his figure of 4·25 per cent. for inflation made nonsense of by recent interest rate rises? Will not that mean real cuts for local authorities?
How can the right hon. Gentleman say that this is good news for the ratepayers when every council spending at target next year will receive less grant and, therefore, have to raise rates and cut services just to avoid paying the harshest penalties that the Government have ever imposed upon local authorities? The Secretary of State said:
This continues the trend we have set over recent years of shifting the burden of local authority expenditure away from the taxpayer and towards the ratepayer, thereby increasing local authorities' accountability".
What nonsense from a Government who fought an election campaign on a pledge to abolish the rates.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way to help ratepayers would be to maintain the real value of grant and to scrap the penalty system, and not, as he is doing, by cutting the RSG in real terms by about £590 million?
Dealing with the list of rate-capped authorities, does the right hon. Gentleman recall our correspondence during the Portsmouth by-election? Does he remember writing to me on 11 June and, in the first paragraph, saying, following the announcements I had made about his list:
The information given to you is incorrect in virtually every detail. I am surprised that you should make such accusations on the basis of inaccurate hearsay.''?
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the list he has just announced is identical to the list that I announced, plus one authority—the London borough of Hackney? May I also remind him that the tests he has applied are exactly those tests which I said he intended to apply? Does not the statement make the letter of 11 June in his name completely dishonest? Does it not also mean that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Conservative candidate in Portsmouth, Mr. Patrick Rock, told deliberate lies to the electors of Portsmouth in a desperate attempt to salvage votes for a discredited Government?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that four authorities he has designated today — Haringey, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Thamesdown — have increased expenditure by less than the average for local


authorities as a whole? Why are they included when the City of London is not included, spending 274 per cent. above its 1979 expenditure level and 247 per cent. above its GRE—the worst overspender by both tests?
Does the Secretary of State understand that his announcement will place authorities in an impossible position, as was acknowledged recently in a letter to The Times from Councillor Norman Hawkins, the Conservative leader of the London borough of Hillingdon, who said that if authorities obeyed Whitehall they would end up breaking the law requiring them to provide proper services to their areas? The Secretary of State's statement will provoke resistance from all councils committed to maintaining essential jobs and services.
Far from saving public expenditure overall, this exercise will cost the Exchequer an extra £600 million because the claimed savings of about £200 million from the controlled and designated authorities will have to be set against the extra £850 million the Treasury has had to cough up to buy off some of the right hon. Gentleman's Tory friends.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that cutting rate support grant and forcing councils to provide a larger share of their own expenditure is not increasing their freedom or choice, nor is it improving responsibility or accountability to ratepayers and to voters? In reality, under this system the more responsibility a council takes for a greater percentage of its expenditure, the more likely it is to come under Whitehall domination. Does not that make the whole exercise nonsense?

Mr. Jenkin: That is an astonishing tally of criticisms against what is a fair and realistic settlement. The hon. Gentleman took no account of the aggregate targets which I have just announced—some 6 per cent. higher than the targets that I announced at this time last year; that it allows a 4·25 per cent. uplift for low spenders compared with 3 per cent. last year when inflation last year was due to be 5 per cent. compared with the estimate of 4·25 per cent. this year. That is for authorities——

Dr. Cunningham: It is a cut in real services.

Mr. Jenkin: It is not a cut. Authorities last year which were above their GREs faced a 2·5 per cent. uplift of target only, against a 5 per cent. inflation. This year it is a 3·75 per cent. uplift against a 4·25 per cent. estimate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Government of whom he was a member reduced the proportion of the aggregate Exchequer grant from 1976 to 1979, whereas we are merely maintaining — [Interruption.] That makes authorities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like, more accountable to their ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman made great play about Portsmouth. He will remember that the letter he wrote to me — he has quoted my reply to it— accused me of deliberately manipulating to try to secure political purposes. He accused me of using the Civil Service to politically gerrymander legislation; and he said that officials had been told to look for special circumstances to exclude that council. All those accusations were false, and that is what I said in my reply.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned four authorities whose spending is less in excess than the GRE of the City. The

City has consistently hit its spending target. None of the designated councils has come within 4 per cent. of its target. The hon. Gentleman has the figures wrong when he talks about the extra costs of £600 million. What matters is what is spent, not what appears in the public expenditure White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman will know that year by year we have had to add back into the public expenditure White Paper substantial sums because of substantial overspending. This next year, if the 18 capped authorities had continued increasing spending at the same rate that they have over the past three years, the aggregate spending would be £400 million higher than the limits I have now set for those 18 authorities. The result is that I am able to offer fairer targets to the low-spending authorities—the authorities whose spending is below the level of their GRE. This is a fair settlement.

Mr. Francis Pym: The extent to which my right hon. Friend has been able to provide a fairer settlement for the low-spending authorities will be greatly appreciated. The figures will require careful study, but he has made a move to ease the share of the burden falling on those authorities.
However, how does my right hon. Friend justify what appears to be a U-turn from trying to abolish the rates and ease the burden on the ratepayer to a situation in which the burden on the ratepayer appears to be going to increase without limit? Will not whatever assistance he may feel that he has obtained out of the Rates Bill be more than offset for all ratepayers by a reduction from 51·9 per cent. to 48·8 per cent. in the overall contribution of the rate support grant, and is that not bad news for the ratepayer?

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his appreciation. As he will know, it was very much in response to representations from him and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we adopted this new method of setting targets.
I have merely announced the percentage of aggregate Exchequer grant for 1985–86. No assumptions should be made about the pattern of grant in ensuing years. This is not a U-turn. We are continuing a trend followed by successive Governments since 1976 who have sought to reduce the percentage of local authority current spending met by the taxpayer and to increase the accountability to the local ratepayer.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that if authorities spend within their targets next year the average level of rate increase should be lower than the average level this year, which at 5·5 per cent., is the lowest for 10 years.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cut in the share of local authority expenditure which he has announced today is bad news for the areas which are already suffering hardship as a consequence of Government policy? Will he accept that people in south Yorkshire are puzzled because it is only a few days since the Secretary of State for Transport announced that it was Government policy to have lower fares and better services, and that the ratepayers should provide a subsidy to promote the bus services? Since that is the policy that we have been trying to pursue in south Yorkshire in the face of considerable opposition from the right hon. Gentleman, will he consult the Secretary of State for Transport and try to decide in which Department the illogicality lies?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend—to whom this question is primarily addressed — would be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that in south Yorkshire as in many other metropolitan transport authorities there is certainly scope for massive improvements in efficiency, and that furthermore adjustments are being made in targets this year because of the capital-only transport supplementary grant. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend and I work closely together. We believe that the combined package that we have put before the country on rate support grant and transport supplementary grant will be fair to authorities such as his.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed by the hard-pressed ratepayers of Haringey who enjoy the unenviable distinction of being among the most heavily charged and least well served in the country, as was evidenced a few days ago by the HMI report on local education? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that the economies will be found from the waste and the top-heavy administration of an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and not from the essential services?

Mr. Jenkin: The borough of Haringey also has the unenviable distinction of having increased its manpower by over 5 per cent. between 1979 and 1983, when the average outer London authority was able to reduce manpower by 3·5 per cent. Haringey will be well able to meet the necessary economies by cutting out overheads and bureaucracy among the town hall staff.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The right hon. Gentleman may believe that he is being fair, but can he really believe that he is being fair to Greenwich? There is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that, in terms of value for money and the size of the social problems faced by the council, the right hon. Gentleman's figures are completely and utterly wrong.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind during the coming months that the report of the Audit Commission will demonstrate that the result of this absurd system is that, far from being better off, the ratepayer is worse off to the extent of £1·5 billion a year?

Mr. Jenkin: The London borough of Greenwich is among those which have increased their spending by the largest amounts over the past two years. It is now spending 114 per cent. more than its 1978–79 figure, compared with an average increase among local authorities of 79 per cent. Such an authority should clearly be able to make the modest savings in expenditure which capping will necessitate next year.
The hon. Gentleman would be wise to wait until he sees the final report of the Audit Commission before he comments on that report.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend be warned that his proposals will prove arbitrary, dangerous, ineffective, and ultimately costly? Will he accept that there is no possibility of good news for ratepayers as long as we continue to transfer the burden from taxes to rates—the tax which is least able to bear it? Does not my right hon. Friend understand that there is not the slightest possibility of keeping the lid on this boiling saucepan unless we have a financial structure which is comprehensible—which this certainly is not—and a system which is fair to all ratepayers in all parts of the country?

Mr. Jenkin: If my right hon. and learned Friend will give me a blueprint of the system which he would like to see, I shall study it carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend makes no secret of his dislike for the rate-capping legislation, but it would have been impossible for me this year to offer fairer targets to those spending below their GRE if I had not started to make savings from the highest spenders. Those authorities have been for too long able to pass on the burden of their higher spending to authorities which have budgeted and spent responsibly year after year. I am glad to have been able to start a trend in the other direction.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that these proposals have no basis in principle? If we go on in this direction, there will soon be no central Government support at all and everything will be funded from the rates, and that will be quite contrary to the only policy on the matter which the Government have ever claimed to espouse. The proposals are also contrary to logic, because most of the expenses are determined by debt repayment, interest chargers, nationally fixed employment agreements, and housing benefit amounts.
Above all, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals show no compassion? Most people in the inner-city constituencies such as mine have their rates paid for them because they do not have the money to pay. What will the effect be on the homeless, the unemployed, children in nurseries, the people who need the health services, and the old? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the figures, is that because he does not know or because he does not care?

Mr. Jenkin: The last time there was a 3 per cent. cut in aggregate Exchequer grant, inflation was higher, there was no rate capping and there was a very high overspend by local authorities. Despite all that, the average rate increase in 1983–84 was only 6·5 per cent. Now that we have lower inflation and rate capping, and as we expect a much lower overspend next year, I stand by the view that if authorities budget to spend within the target there will be a lower rate increase next year than there has been this year. The exemption of some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents from rate payments is part of the Government's policy to ease the burden on those least able to bear that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that policy.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Whatever the merits of the general principle of applying controls on authorities which use political measures to flout the general will of the people as expressed through Parliament, does my right hon. Friend agree that slavish adherence to a formula means that cities such as Portsmouth, of which I seem to be the only representative present, with a reputation for good housekeeping but with social and economic problems stemming not least from the loss of employment caused by the rundown of the naval dockyards under the Government's policies, are artificially caught within a category from which, according to all the principles of equity and justice, they should be excluded?

Mr. Jenkin: It would have been quite indefensible to manipulate the principles so as to exclude Portsmouth, which is now spending more than 5 per cent. above its


target and nearly 35 per cent. above GRE. Moreover, its budgeted expenditure for 1984–85 represents about £88.75 per head compared with £71 per head for the 10 largest shire disricts and £51 per head for the shire districts as a whole. It is not as though Portsmouth is unfairly treated in terms of GRE, which is £66 per head—the eighth highest of all the shire districts — compared with an average of less than £50 per head for the shire districts as a whole. It may well be trying to budget responsibly, but it has repeatedly spent in excess of its target, so I am afraid that it is caught by the principles, although it is entitled, like any other authority, to seek derogations under the Rates Act.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Why is the Secretary of State pursuing such a wicked vendetta against the people of Sheffield when increases have been more than 2 per cent. below the national average since 1978–79 and 8 per cent. below the national average since 1981–82? Is it because the people of Sheffield have consistently increased their Labour vote throughout that period due to the good local government provided in that city?

Mr. Jenkin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should talk to the commercial and business ratepayers who pay the overwhelming proportion of rates in Sheffield. They will be able to tell him a thing or two about rate payments in Sheffield.

Mr. David Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the small potential relative improvement in the position of low-spending counties will be welcome, as far as it goes, after the unrealistic and unfair position that previously prevailed? Does he agree, however, that the whole paraphernalia of holdback, clawback, penalties and targets is reaching the end of its useful life, if it ever had one, and that the time will very soon be here for a major reform to establish relations between local and central government on a fairer basis and to define more clearly the distribution of functions between them?

Mr. Jenkin: On many occasions, speaking before local authority audiences and elsewhere, I have made no secret of my wish to see an end to the target and holdback provisions and I hope that we shall be able to move in that direction in the next year or two. In the meantime, however, there is considerable overspend on local authority current expenditure. That was one of the reasons for my announcement about overspending on capital expenditure, which I would rather not have made. Until local authority expenditure as a whole is closer to the Government guidelines, the measures will remain necessary, but I take careful note of my hon. Friend's wish for a long-term solution to the difficult problem of the financial relations between central and local government and I share his ambitions in that respect.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the city of Leicester has managed to retain its excellent services while keeping rate increases below inflation at 3·106 per cent. last year and 4·253 per cent. this year? In his campaign for taxation without local representation, will he at least exclude decent, responsible, hard-working Labour authorities which are doing a first-class job for the citizens of areas such as Leicester?

Mr. Jenkin: Leicester's budget is more than 27 per cent. above GRE and nearly 5 per cent. above target. In the past five years, Leicester has increased its spending by 134 per cent. compared with an average of 79 per cent. While the average shire district has managed to reduce manpower by 6·2 per cent. since 1979, Leicester has increased its manpower by 6·9 per cent.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I thank my right hon. Friend for his early statement, which will undoubtedly help local authorities in their financial planning. I also welcome what he is doing for the lower spenders. Does he accept, however, that the increase for low spenders will at best be at the level of inflation? Is he aware that those authorities have already cut services to the bone and that there has been a progressive deterioration in roads, the provision of school books, and so on? Is it not likely, therefore, that the rate increase in the lowest spending areas will be a good deal higher than the average?

Mr. Jenkin: It is impossible to estimate the rate increase in any individual authority or class of authority as this will depend on the way in which they prepare their budgets next year and the extent to which they use balances or put money to balances.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the more realistic targets that we are setting for low spenders. The advantage of the proposals that I have announced is that if an authority can make savings through greater efficiency it can then put the savings into improved services without incurring any holdback penalty. The great majority of authorities could still run their services more efficiently. The low-spending authorities will be able to use that greater efficiency to provide better services.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Secretary of State aware that 80 per cent. of the budget of Merseyside county council goes on police and fire services and public transport and that the council has managed to turn the tide with regard to passenger transport use? Which statutory obligations does he expect the council to renege on? Is it to be the police or the fire service when in both cases the pay settlements are nationally agreed? Is he aware that in a deprived area such as Merseyside, where more than 50 per cent. of households do not own a car, people rely on an efficient passenger transport service such as that which has become increasingly available under the Labour-controlled council? Is he also aware from his recent visits that the people of Merseyside will never succumb to his gauleiter policies?

Mr. Jenkin: The Merseyside county council and some other authorities would do well to stop spending ratepayers' money on free handouts to the miners. The hon. Gentleman's language is grossly exaggerated. I am asking no more of the three highest spenders than for them to spend the same cash next year as they are budgeting to spend this year. They should then manage to provide all services without coming within a mile of breaching any of their statutory obligations.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: If the Government intend to reduce by 3 per cent. the share of local authority expenditure which they pay, how will that assist in reducing the level of rate rises to which the Government are committed?

Mr. Jenkin: We are enhancing the accountability of local authorities — [Interruption.] That is exactly the argument which the Opposition used when they did the same. By enhancing their accountability local authorities will be made responsive to their ratepayers' desire for more economic and effective services. That is a continuation of a trend followed by successive Governments since 1976.

Ms. Harriet Harman: How can the Secretary of State say that Southwark is an overspending authority when its increase in expenditure in the last five years has been less than the increase in expenditure by the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the fact that if he rate-caps Southwark it will mean fewer home helps, fewer meals on wheels and fewer nursery places? Is he aware that that is bound to mean that more elderly people and more children will be forced into institutions, which is in direct contradiction to what his friends in the DHSS say they want? Should the right hon. Gentleman not be pursuing authorities such as Gloucestershire, which refused a home help to a woman of 104 and the Isle of Wight which provides not one nursery place, instead of Southwark which tries to provide decent services?

Mr. Jenkin: Southwark is spending nearly 52 per cent. above its GRE and nearly 17 per cent. above its target. It has increased its expenditure by 100 per cent. in the last five years compared with the average of 79 per cent. Southwark simply must recognise that the burden that it has imposed upon its ratepayers is intolerable. The purpose of the Rates Act is to protect ratepayers in high-spending areas. I am glad that we have been able to make a start this year.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the strictures of right hon. and hon. Members who know the size of the problem, those of us who represent low-spending, prudently managed counties such as Essex are pleased that he listened to our plea earlier this year that good management should not be penalised by the profligate spending of the few? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Essex is likely to receive 4 per cent. or more above this year's budget? Does that figure take account of any likely movement of inflation between now and then?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. Essex has been spending below its GRE. Notwithstanding that it was marginally over target this year, its target will be uplifted by the full and maximum 4·25 per cent., which is the present estimate of the gross domestic product deflater. The Essex spending target should be protected against inflation.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be received with anger by the Sheffield city and south Yorkshire councils which have pursued reasonable and realistic targets, have deployed their resources efficiently—given the nature and burden of their responsibilities — and whose records have been endorsed time and again at the polls? Where does the scope for improvement in Sheffield lie without crippling its services and creating job losses? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was venting his political spleen on what is, after all, a Labour citadel.

Mr. Jenkin: Politics does not enter into the issue. We have applied fair and reasonable criteria, without fear or favour, against all authorities. Ratepayers in Sheffield and south Yorkshire have been groaning under the burden of rates. During the passage of the Rates Act the nexus between rates and votes in the two areas broke down. The Government fought the election on a pledge to protect ratepayers against high-spending councils. This is the first step to that end.

Sir John Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), the residents of Hallam, who find the rates burden too heavy, will welcome his statement? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that industry, trade and commerce in Sheffield and south Yorkshire have seen extravagance in the city and county councils for five and perhaps 10 years and therefore will welcome a measure that will control the burden on their businesses so that they can stay in business and do not have to make more people unemployed?
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that defiance can be mitigated by constructive proposals by the Auditor-General and his Department so that at last we may have more efficient town and county halls?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the question of the proposed defiance of the Rates Act, it comes ill from the Opposition to say that they will not heed legislation passed by the House. However, councils are not led by one man — [Interruption.] — however notorious he may be. Every councillor who faces the responsibility of complying with the Government's legislation will have to recognise his legal obligations. I have no doubt that, as in Liverpool this year, when authorities face decisions next year they will recognise that the law has to be obeyed.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of the problems faced by local authorities stem from this Government's policy of rising unemployment and all its social consequences? Instead of regurgitating figures, the right hon. Gentleman should pay full regard to the human problems in the cities to which only local authorities can react. Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to that, instead of telling us constantly about the overspending and wastefulness of local authorities which spend their money on housing people, on home helps and on providing social services? Does he agree that such services are needed more in times of high unemployment?

Mr. Jenkin: Of course local authorities have a duty to those whom they serve. The needs of an area which is deprived are recognised in the GRE assessments. However, that does not excuse local authorities which do not seek to provide services in the most efficient and effective way possible. In areas where there is a great need for local authority services the incentive and obligation to achieve the maximum efficiency is higher. I hope that the hon. Member will use his influence to try to secure that result in Liverpool.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Streatham and Lambeth will present him with a vote of thanks because they have been hammered by high rates and little improvement in


services? Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to impose personal penalties on councillors who introduce illegal rates, or no rates at all?

Mr. Jenkin: On the latter point, the ordinary provisions of the law will apply. As we have seen this year, there is an obligation on an authority to make a rate, and the auditor, although allowing reasonable time for that process, is not powerless where an authority refuses to do so.
On the first point, compared with the London borough of Wandsworth, which in 1983–84 spent £202 per head, Lambeth spent £315 per head, which is half as high again. Who will put his hand on his heart and say that Lambeth services are half as good again as those of Wandsworth?

Mr. John Fraser: Will not the Secretary of State recognise that in Lambeth he has achieved a moronic double? He will be cutting local authority services there by 10 per cent. in real terms—taking into account the increase in interest rates and inflation—and cutting the services of ILEA and the GLC by about 10 per cent. in real terms. At the same time, he is forcing up rates by cutting rate support grant by about 6p in the pound and by increasing penalties so that, for instance, in Lambeth every extra pound spent on improvement grants or the administration of the housing benefit system, because of holdback, will cost the ratepayers £10.
The Secretary of State has announced a prospectus for poverty, redundancy and cuts. Does he not realise that he is pushing local authorities to the very limits of legality and breaching the convention of general municipal obedience to central Government? Let me warn the Secretary of State that he had better start making preparations to nationalise local government.

Mr. Jenkin: I might reasonably ask the hon. Gentleman why it costs Lambeth £15 a head to empty dustbins when neighbouring Wandsworth does it for £9. That can be repeated in service after service. The hon. Gentleman is doing no service to his constituents by trying to pretend that his authority is so efficient that it cannot make even the savings necessary for a cash standstill this year over next year.

Sir Dudley Smith: Given the situation which has arisen, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is essential to reward low-spending authorities for their efforts, which he has gone some way towards doing this afternoon? Is he also aware that the vast majority of ratepayers—I mean ratepayers—will regard the package that he has announced as being fair and a measure that will begin to curb some of the excesses about which we have learnt? Does not this show yet again that there is an essential need to revise the whole rating system?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend knows that the Government engaged in as wide a consultation as any of their predecessors in trying to find an alternative to the rating system for financing local authorities. This was the subject of a study by the Select Committee on the Environment. The conclusion both of the Government and the Committee was that there appeared to be no acceptable alternative to the local rates. The real problem is that rates in some areas are rising too high and the burden was too

great. The announcement that I made was the first step towards implementation of the manifesto pledge that we would deal with that problem.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), when Liverpool did not want to cut services and make people redundant and so that Liverpool would stay within the law, urged the Liverpool Labour group to put up rates? Now they are making that legal action illegal for these rate-capped authorities. Does not the Secretary of State realise that he is likely to turn into lawbreakers and criminals those in our society who have spent a lifetime protecting the elderly, the disabled and our education services, whereas the heroin pushers and dealers of Merseyside will be left alone?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in mad exaggeration. I am asking the highest spending authorities to do no more than to keep their spending in cash terms next year level with that of this year. They are, by definition, authorities that are spending well above the GRE level and well above targets. They should look about and use the Audit Commission report to see where their services are so much less economical and efficient. Many other authorities are well able to provide good services at much lower cost. That is the way to get value for money in local government.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the Member for Leicester, East, I speak with authority when I say that the news that Leicester is to be rate capped will be welcome to both local and commercial ratepayers alike? Is he further aware that up to £60,000 has already been spent by the grossly extravagant Labour-controlled Leicester city council when its spending rate is 55 per cent. above the national spending rate in this year alone? It has a policy of no redundancies under any circumstances, which is why its employment rate is 6·9 per cent. above the national average. This is the best news that my right hon. Friend could have given us this afternoon.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: If the average increase in spend of all authorities since 1979 has been 92 per cent., and the London borough of Haringey has increased its spend by 88 per cent. on what basis does the right hon. Gentleman justify rate capping that authority? If he again uses the argument about increased manpower in that authority, how does he square it with the Home Secretary's recent boast about the increased number of policemen who have been employed in London? Does that mean that the Secretary of State is rate capping all these authorities to make a reduction in real terms next year by the equivalent of the rise in the retail price index, and will that include a cut in the police force for London?

Mr. Jenkin: The Metropolitan police force is not covered by this statement. In 1983–84, Haringey spent £555 per head, which is 37 per cent. over GRE compared with neighbouring Enfield, which spent £328 per head, which is 2 per cent. above the GRE. Why does Haringey employ 64·4 staff per 1,000 population when other outer London boroughs manage with 43 staff per 1,000 population? By any standards, Haringey is a grossly overspending authority. As my hon. Friend the Member


for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, many of the ratepayers there will welcome my announcement this afternoon.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Swindon and Thamesdown will welcome this news? Is he also aware that the Audit Commission report for Thamesdown showed that the bulk of the overspending by that authority was in the development of new houses and new factories in the new parts of the borough so as to help to create employment and prosperity? Will he recognise that fact when, as I think is likely, the local authority's representatives come to talk to him soon?

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, the Rates Act makes provision for authorities to seek derogations from the expenditure limits that I have announced. I have no doubt that a number of authorities will be beating a path to my door to put their particular circumstances to me. We shall no doubt look carefully at factors such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. John Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State accept that the best way to get value for money from local council spending is not to create an ever more complex and bureaucratic system of central Government control but to give local people a better chance to influence what goes on in their town halls? Has he seen the threat made by a number of rate-capped authorities that they will dissipate their reserves during the current financial year, and will therefore have to levy a substantial rate rise even to fund the reduced expenditure that he is approving for next year? How will that be good news for the ratepayers in those authorities?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is applauding the actions of authorities which wish to do that. A number of authorities, in making their budget and rate this year, drew heavily on balances. One can only spend a balance once. It may be that some authorities will make high rate increases next year. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that their expenditure will be lower than it otherwise would have been as a result of the operation of the Rates Act that I have announced this afternoon.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: My right hon. Friend is well aware that some authorities protected their ratepayers by prudent budgeting and expenditure economy before the Government returned to office in 1979. How does he defend a formula that seems to penalise such authorities for so doing, and seems to ignore the substantial discrepancies in rating valuation which affect Surrey as opposed to, say, Kent or Hampshire? Can he tell me, for the benefit of my constituents, where he expects Surrey to come in the order of priorities of beneficiaries from his statement today?

Mr. Jenkin: Surrey will have a maximum increase of 4·25 per cent., which is equivalent to the estimate of inflation next year. Surrey is a high-resource authority. As my hon. Friend knows, the principle of equalisation of rate poundage is fair. Because high-resource authorities have a broad resource base, they should be able to keep rate increases down to reasonable levels next year if they spend within their targets, as I am sure that Surrey will wish to do.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman must have a heart of flint, or an implanted calculating machine, when he puts inner city areas like Brent into his scheme. Does he recall that under our statutory obligations we are paying £30,000 a week for the homeless, and that we have a crisis in housing with 15,000 people on the waiting list?
More important, does he recall that when he was Secretary of State for Social Services he persuaded local authorities to bring people out of the institutions of psychiatric hospitals and into the community? As a result in Brent we are bringing 60 patients from Shenley into the community by arrangement with the DHSS. The right hon. Gentleman's cuts in Brent will mean that the support and back-up services for those people will not be available. How can he justify that?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is aware that GREs take account of the special needs of inner cities. Perhaps I may quote some of the figures. Camden has a GRE of £360 per head, Islington of £353 and Hackney £321. The average GRE for inner London is £286.
If the GRE average, excluding education, is compared with that in the outer London boroughs, to put it on a comparable basis, the average GRE is £140 per head in outer London boroughs. Several inner-city areas undoubtedly have inner-city problems, which is recognised in our formula.
The fact that an inner-city authority has inner-city problems is not a reason for not making its services as effective and efficient as possible. I know that the local authorities in Brent and many other areas could certainly make economies in the way that they deliver services for their ratepayers.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase is welcome as far as it goes, although I should like it to go much further. For example, in the London borough of Hillingdon it seems that the target will be just under £90 million, whereas Hillingdon's forecast target budget for this year is £90·363 million.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unless there is an improvement in the rate support grant settlement in December, the high-resource outer London authorities like Hillingdon will continue to face considerable difficulties?

Mr. Jenkin: I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that the target for an outer London authority such as Hillingdon, which is spending above its GRE, will be 3·75 per cent. higher than its budget for this year. Last year, the equivalent figure was only 2·5 per cent. against a 5 per cent. inflation forecast, whereas this year the proposed target is only 0·5 per cent. below the estimate of inflation. I do not think that that should prove an impossible target to meet, even in Hillingdon, which I know faces considerable problems.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that the expenditure level that he set in his statement for the London borough of Islington will effectively mean a cut of 8 per cent. in Islington's services in the next financial year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an invitation to come with me to Islington—it is not far from the House —to meet some of the elderly people, the families with children and those with disabilities who will be severely harmed by the effect of his statement? He would learn at


first hand not that they welcome the statement — far from it—but that they react with anger and resentment at the loss of those services. Will the right hon. Gentleman come with me and talk to my constituents to find out what they really think?

Mr. Jenkin: I was in Islington three weeks ago addressing a meeting. There was warm support for the Government's legislation and a strong demand that Islington should be on the list of rate-capped authorities. Islington has become notorious for spending money on wild fringe activities and it could certainly run many services more economically. All that we ask is that Islington should hold its cash spending next year at the same level as this year—against an inflation forecast of 4·25 per cent. which I do not think is unreasonable.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful to him for sincerely trying to rectify the injustices of his predecessors to low spenders and that all ratepayers and sensible people welcome his attempt to curb the activities of some lunatic authorities? Assuming that Cambridgeshire will receive its 4·25 per cent. is it not being hit less firmly than other authorities rather than having the injustices of many years rectified?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing counties in the country? That is causing special problems. Is he also aware that all this is no substitute for proper reform of the silly rating system and that decisions are needed rather than more consultations?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is referring to our attempts to meet the case last year for low-spending authorities, for which I thank him. Cambridgeshire, like most low spenders, will be allowed an increase of 4·25 per cent. on this year's budget compared with a maximum of 3 per cent. for the current year against an inflation estimate of 5 per cent.
Under the public expenditure constraints, it would be wrong for me to disregard spending above target, even if it is below GRE. Supposing that I had allowed a disregard for spending between target and GRE, that would give an additional headroom of about £500 million. We were already adding more than £800 million to local authority current spending. Given the constraints, the announcement is fair.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that what he calls the excesses of high-spending authorities arise because many areas provide services that they are not statutorily obliged to do, such as nursery education or care for the elderly, for which all authorities must provide increasingly? Does he accept that councils might be running something like south Yorkshire's passenger transport service, which has much popular support? Although the Secretary of State claims to protect ratepayers, the ratepayers of south Yorkshire ought to be protected against him, his Rates Act and his rate capping rather than ratepayers being protected from the authorities?
In the past 12 months, since I came to the House, I have not received any letters from ratepayers complaining about the level of South Yorkshire county council's rates. My

local authority, which I consulted recently, has not received letters from local business men complaining about the rates in south Yorkshire. How can the Secretary of State justify saying that he needs protection when we need protection from Whitehall, not the other way round?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have received many letters from ratepayers in south Yorkshire who have complained about the burden of rates. Indeed, they have made it abundantly clear that they look to the Government to protect them against the persistently high rate demands that that authority has made over the years.
I am confident that south Yorkshire will be able to live within the expenditure limit that I have set, which requires no more than that it should keep its cash spending in line with its spending for this year.

Mr. Piers Merchant: In view of the doubts expressed about the exact nature of the criteria used in selecting those authorities that are the so-called victims of rate limitation, will my right hon. Friend consider reviewing those criteria at an early opportunity? Will he also examine the financial situation of Newcastle city council? According to his announcement, that authority is not to be rate limited, although it is well-known for its extravagence and high rates. Although my right hon. Friend's statement will be good news to many ratepayers throughout the country, does he accept that it will not help those ratepayers in Newcastle who were last year faced with the highest rates in the country?

Mr. Jenkin: If I remember rightly, it was my hon. Friend who drew the attention of the Standing Committee on the Rates Bill to the fact that, even before that Bill had reached the statute book, Newcastle city council was taking account of its provisions. It has clearly made efforts to come closer to the targets that it was set and so to reduce the burden on its ratepayers, and it does not come within the criteria that I have set out. I hope that many other authorities will do their best to avoid coming within the criteria set under the Rates Act. That is the best way of keeping local authority spending within limits.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only groaning to be heard in south Yorkshire has come from the weight of Labour votes in the ballot box, which have returned Labour councillors to south Yorkshire in overwhelming numbers time and again? Would he care to publish the letters that he has received, as I suspect that some of them come from people who do not live in south Yorkshire but who have probably visited it? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people themselves want to determine the sort of area in which they live, the services that they want, and the amount of money that they should pay? It is not the Secretary of State's job to tell them what to do.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman sat through all our proceedings on the Rates Bill, and he should know that that is not a proposition that either this Government or their predecessors could accept. Local authorities derive their powers, including their powers to tax, from Parliament, and for many years they have abided by the convention that their total expenditure should remain within the guidelines set by central Government and approved by the House. Like any other authority, south Yorkshire is not


entirely free to spend and rate up as far as it would wish. As part of the general body politic in this country, it is expected to he guided by the guidelines laid down by this House.

Mr. W. Benyon: My right hon. Friend will recall that I was no particular friend of the Rates Bill. Nevertheless, it is the law of the land. Will he make it crystal clear that the Government will not hesitate to use the full resources of the law against any council that goes against that law?

Mr. Jenkin: So far as it lies within my power, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, some of the legal provisions lie at the instance of the district auditor.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposals that he has announced will lop about £60 million off the budget of the Inner London educational authority? Will he also confirm that he has not obtained a mandate so to damage London's education service from a borough election, an ILEA/GLC election or a parliamentary election? Will he take it from me that the people of inner London will not be prepared to put up with a £60 million cut in provision for their education service, which they want to see improved, not damaged?

Mr. Jenkin: Compared with ILEA's budget — national insurance surcharge adjusted—for the current year of £917 million, ILEA's provisional target for next year is £900 million, which is nowhere near the reduction that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman should take account of inflation.

Mr. Jenkin: We can take account of inflation, but the fact remains that ILEA spends far more on many of its services than other education authorities. I have no doubt whatever that it can make the savings sought this year without seriously damaging its services.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that those businesses within the local authority areas that he has named will welcome his proposals, as it is they that pay most of the rates and have to provide the jobs. What percentage of householders and those within the local authorities that he has named actually pay the full rate?

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, the percentage varies from authority to authority. However, over the country as a whole, only £1 in £5 is paid by the domestic ratepayer. Indeed, £4 out of every £5 comes from other sources, including the rate support grant. In many of the areas affected by rate capping, the percentage of those paying rates is even lower than that. In those circumstances, the ratepayers turn to the Government for protection. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not bordering on the hypocritical of the Government to tell local authorities that are striving manfully to provide services for the young, the old, the disabled, and so on, to make cuts while at the same time the Government are giving increased grants to the Common Market in 1984–85 so that French farmers can be subsidised, the Italian Mafia can be propped up and another 60,000 tonnes of cheap butter can be provided for Russia while unemployment rises as a

result? Is it not apparent that the Labour-controlled authorities can fight this measure only by joining together and defying this obnoxious law?

Mr. Jenkin: I know that the Gentleman has been away for a little while, but I think that he may have strayed into the wrong debate.

Mr. John Powley: At first sight, the settlement for Norfolk seems to be along the right lines. But does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the settlement for any local authority is, authorities will be better able to keep within their targets during the forthcoming financial year if wage and salary settlements—which account for 60 to 65 per cent. of all expenditure—are kept to low single figures and if, in particular, the current dispute with the teachers is settled at the announced rate of 4·5 per cent.?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that local authorities should look to their pay and manpower levels if they are to keep within their targets and provide efficient services. I note what he has said about the teachers' pay arbitration. That matter is currently in hand, and it would be quite wrong of me to express any view about it.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State belongs to a Government who glory in confrontation and are continually trying to recreate domestically the Falklands war. They are doing it with the miners and now they are going to do it with local government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the GLC were to cut £54 million off its budget for 1985–86, it would mean terminating all grants to organisations—no doubt the Secretary of State would be glad of that—stopping funding to the Greater London training board, adding £5 a week to housing rents, sacking 1,000 firemen, reducing the operation of the Thames barrier, ending all repairs, removing the GLC mobility scheme, and so on? Does he really believe that members of the GLC will carry out such cuts? I can assure him that we shall not. The Secretary of State is writing a prescription for confrontation, because that is the style of his Government, that is what his political mistress wants, and that is precisely what they will get this year. The only thing that concerns me is that it will not be this Secretary of State who will see the confrontation. However, his announcement is a prescription for confrontation, and he should know it.

Mr. Jenkin: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman's speech might have been better received on the other side of the Thames.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action he has taken today. He will realise that the vast majority of people outside this House cannot understand the bleating that is taking place here on behalf of a few power-hungry, empire-building local authorities which, if they half put their houses in order and were half as efficient as industry —which has recently put itself in order, and pays over half the rates received—would have no problem at all in maintaining their services. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the knife will at last be taken to the collection of free-loading lesbians, gabbling left-wing Goebbels and—as we saw last night on television—the headquarters of the alternative Labour party, which is currently funded by the GLC?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend expresses the views of a large number of ratepayers.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement amounts to nothing more than a vendetta by the Government against the poorest people in the poorest parts of the country and against the public sector trade unions which are doing their best to defend the public interest? Is he further aware that many authorities will refuse to go on bended knee and ask for derogation and to co-operate by making a rate at the end of the year and that their electors will strongly support their declaration of war on the Government for trying to destroy their local services?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the borough of Islington the proposed cuts amount to more than £8 million? Is he further aware that 10 per cent. of all council jobs will be lost — for example, 80 staff will be dismissed from the housing repair section, 100 from the closure of six libraries, 71 from the closure of two old people's homes and 120 from the closure of six children's day nurseries? That means that 751 staff would be dismissed if these policies were carried out. Is he also aware that these policies mean that council workers will be thrown on the dole and that life will be made more miserable for the poor, the sick and the elderly? Has his Department calculated the on-cost in terms of misery and unemployment benefits that these policies will cause?

Mr. Jenkin: Nothing whatever will be gained by such wild scaremongering. Islington will be asked to do no more than to keep spending next year in line with spending this year. I have no doubt that, like other city authorities, it will be able to achieve that if it sets its mind to it.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: While waiting for the fundamental reform of the rating system, is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of ratepayers in Basildon, Billericay and Wickford will be delighted by these proposals? It may put an end to such things as tenpin bowling alleys being run at a loss on the rates, party political propaganda on the rates, nuclear-free zones and CND flowerbeds in our recreation parks and, worst of all, the driving out of real, meaningful jobs from our districts.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. The Basildon authority is spending more than 70 per cent. above its GRE in the current year and, by any standards, it is a grossly extravagant authority.

Mr. Bill Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware that I received a letter from a large engineering company, which set out how much the rates had affected its profits? I sent a letter back explaining how much the cuts in Government grants to Sheffield had affected profits, and asking whether I should take the matter further. The firm has since been silent. I advise other hon. Members to answer similar letters in the same vein so that firms understand what is going on.
Is the Secretary of State fully aware—he did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—of the effect that these proposals will have on jobs and services? His spiteful remarks earlier show that he is fully aware of local authorities which have helped to keep miners' families from starving. He should be more aware of the effect that the proposals will have on jobs and services in caring authorities. Does he realise that hitting so spitefully all authorities which put caring

before profit will only strengthen their resolve to fight to the bitter end? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a MORI poll in Sheffield in which the people were asked their opinions about standing firm against Government cuts, and the answer was——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member. He must put a question to the Secretary of State and not discuss the MORI poll, which has nothing to do with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michie: Finally, is the Secretary of State aware that if he got a bloody nose from the cock-up in Liverpool, it would be like a vicars' tea party throughout the country?

Mr. Jenkin: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hysterical outbursts from Opposition Members are put into context when one considers the way in which many Labour-controlled authorities have responded to Government policies? Is he aware that in spite of many political misdemeanours, for which the Norwich city council is responsible, its prudent reaction to sensible Government policy has led to a 4·25 per cent. increase in target and, therefore, to a reasonably satisfactory outcome for the citizens of Norwich?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. If local authorities budget and spend prudently, they will be able to provide a perfectly adequate level of services at reasonable cost to ratepayers.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is difficult to find an original question? In view of the fact that more than half of the councils to be rate-capped are in Greater London, will he acknowledge that his announcement today will be welcomed by industry and commerce which, through profligate spending by local councils and punitive rates, have had to lay off jobs? Will he undertake to cap Mr. Livingstone and his profligate and extravagant spending of £10 million on party political propaganda and make a statement at an early date about the revaluation, at least, of commercial and industrial properties?

Mr. Jenkin: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's problem. The same is true of finding answers. I answered a written question today about extravagant spending by abolition authorities.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been considering the question of commercial revaluation. I hope that we shall be able to come forward with proposals in due course. Regarding domestic revaluation, the Government are still considering the position. I cannot offer any prospect of an early statement about it.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that virtually no hon. Member on either side of the House has categorised his announcement as good news for ratepayers? [Interruption.] Those who understand the issue certainly did not. Will the Secretary of State explain why he continues to shelter behind weasel words and does not have the courage of his convictions, such as they are, and admit that the target of 4·5 per cent., because it is less than the rate of inflation and taking account of the rise in interest rates, is bound to involve a cut in the real level of spending for authorities which are not to be rate capped and a cut of between 5 and 7 per cent. for authorities which are to be rate capped?
What is the Secretary of State's estimate for inflation following that recent rise in interest rates? Does he understand and accept that the reduction in the rate support grant of £590 million in real terms will force rates up in every area or force further cuts in services? Is he aware that he will be responsible for the rate rises, just as the Association of County Councils said that over the past five years the Government have been responsible for all rate rises above the level of inflation?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that if rate capping were to bring down the rate levels of the rate-capped authorities, there would be less rate support grant from the pool for the non-rate-capped authorities and therefore rate capping would force up the rates in lower spending Conservative-controlled authorities? Does he agree that that is the truth, as the director of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy claimed only last week?
When the Secretary of State talks about using the Audit Commission report, does he have in mind the report leaked last week, which showed that local authority expenditure has not increased above target, but that the apparent increase of £1,500 million during the past three years is entirely attributable to the bizarre and disgraceful system of local government finance over which he presides? He is responsible for overspending, not local authorities.
Lastly, does the Secretary of State believe that it is disgraceful that no provision has been made for a debate on such a major announcement? Does he agree that there should be the fullest possible debate on this report and announcement as soon as the House returns in the autumn?

Mr. Jenkin: The latter point should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman should know that my statement relates to the provisional arrangements for the rate support grant settlement, and that we shall now be consulting local authority associations on my announcement.
The hon. Gentleman said, as we have heard previously, that rate capping is bound to be to the disbenefit of authorities that are not rate-capped. I must tell him that,

overwhelmingly, the effects of the reduction in spending of rate-capped authorities will be to reduce the amount of holdback which they suffer, which has no impact on other authorities. When the holdback is levied, it goes to Me Treasury. When it is reduced, it comes back from the Treasury. If some changes have an effect on the block grant, which is the cash-limited amount, the effect will be no more than marginal. It will be far less important than the fact that we have prevented about £400 million of excess spending, and so have been able to set much more reasonable targets for low-spending authorities.
I do not know where the hon Gentleman has been for the past one and a half hours. Many of my hon. Friends welcomed my statement and recognised that it is in the interests of ratepayers——

Mr. Tony Banks: Only three.

Mr. Jenkin: I have the list here, and it is many more than three.
As to interest rates, these are provisional statements and no doubt we can consult the authorities on the figures that I have announced before I announce the final rate support grant in December.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. in view of the serious statement of the Secretary of State, will you advise me by what means the House can urgently debate this matter and divide on it?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the House will return to this subject again.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the rough time that the Secretary of State has had during the past one and a half hours, could you, as the friend of all of us, say a word of comfort to him before he goes on his last walk to the gallows?

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State would have expected to answer all the questions that were put to him this afternoon. I will leave it at that.

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Copyright Act 1956 so as to provide new penalties for offences relating to infringing copies of computer programmes; to provide for the issue and execution of search warrants in relation to such offences; and to confirm that copyright subsists in computer programmes.
My Bill seeks to curb the serious and growing problem of theft by electronic copying of computer software. The objects of the Bill are, first, to make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that computer programmes in written or in electronically recorded form are covered by the Copyright Act 1956; and, secondly, to give stronger protection by means of the criminal law to the creators and manufacturers of software, who are suffering serious losses from what they describe as software theft.
The description "software theft" is all too accurate. I have watched while a small floppy disk containing the sort of business software that is used to make a microcomputer operate as a word processor, and which retails at nearly £300, is copied on a simple twin disc drive microcomputer in not longer than 10 seconds. There is nothing sophisticated about such theft. The video pirates who used to make pirated copies of video tapes and films, and whose activities are now being substantially curbed by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1983, are now turning their attention to the piracy of software.
The object of the Bill is to make such piracy a criminal offence, in the same way was was done for pirated video tapes by the 1983 Act. The Bill will provide for unlimited fines and for up to two years' imprisonment for the making for sale, importing or distributing for commercial gain of articles which are known to infringe copyright. There will be lesser penalties for the selling, possessing, or exhibiting of such material. The Bill will also provide the police with powers to search for and to seize infringing material. I should make it clear that the Bill's criminal provisions will not apply to infringing copying for non-commercial purposes. As hon. Members with teenage children will know, there is a substantial problem with widespread home copying of games and other programmes. We are not after the schoolboy, but we are after the commercial pirates.
The seriousness of the problem should not be underestimated, and those who work in the industry who are keenly interested in the Bill will be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology, who is here to listen to the debate. Several leading software houses in the United Kingdom, including IBM, have joined the federation against software theft. They estimate that software theft causes annual losses of many tens of millions of pounds; indeed, some estimates exceed hundreds of millions of pounds.
In addition to the example that I have already given of the all-too-easy reproduction of valuable business software

using standard equipment, there are many other examples. Computer games are a growing industry. Those tapes are being pirated on a major scale, just as video tapes used to be pirated. Visitors to the Blackbushe Sunday market will find at least half a dozen stalls selling pirated games tapes, including pirated computer software. At least one operator has his own factory with sophisticated duplicating equipment and a substantial distribution network. Furthermore, those who deal in hardware are all too often ready to yield to the temptation of throwing in pirated copies of valuable business software to the purchasers of their equipment. Those activities damage software houses, large and small. They also injure the consumer, polluting a highly competitive market, and robbing the innovator of a legitimate return on his risk and investment.
Some people argue that a more widespread reform of the Copyright Act is needed, and such a reform may be in distant prospect. The immediate problem is to deal, not with the sophisticated plagiarist, but with the straight thief who, using widely available equipment, can produce with the greatest of ease perfect and immediate replicas of expensive and easily marketable software, which the reputable houses have often spent a small fortune to produce.
A Bill has been drafted to meet those immediate needs. Of course, it cannot become law this Session, but I hope that it will either stimulate a sympathetic Government to legislate in the coming Session, or that they will support a private Member's Bill following the autumn ballot. My proposals have wide support on both sides of the House, and I seek leave to introduce the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, and Mr. Richard Shepherd.

COPYRIGHT (COMPUTER SOFTWARE) AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Nicholas Lyell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Copyright Act 1956 so as to provide new penalties for offences relating to infringing copy of computer programmes; to provide for the issue and execution of search warrants in relation to such offences; and to confirm that copyright subsists in computer programmes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

Trade Union Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in sums so payable under Schedule 1 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 (paragraph 8 of which relates to the provision of staff etc. for the Certification Officer). — [Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED TO RELATION TO ELECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
(6) Every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and
(b) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.
(6A) So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a) have sent to him, at his proper address and by post, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and
(b) be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 1, at beginning, insert—
'(5A) In accordance with Section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, the Secretary of State may issue Codes of Practice containing practical guidance on procedures for the issuing and counting of ballot papers. Such guidance shall stipulate certain minimum criteria and preclude certain practices. Failure by a union to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice shall give a union member the right to apply to the Certification Officer or to the court under section 3(1) of this Act for a declaration that the union has failed to comply with those requirements.'.)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendments (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) to the proposed Lords amendment.

Lords amendment No. 3, after Clause 2 insert the following new clause — Modification of section 2 requirements—
 .—(1) Where a trade union proposes to hold an election and is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 2 of this Act would not be satisfied in relation to that election if subsection (6A) of that section were to apply as modified by this section, it may proceed as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6A) there were substituted—
'(a) have made available to him—

(i)immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and
(ii)at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him;
or be supplied with, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and
(b) be given—

(i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);
(ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity); or
(iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunity).'"

Amendments (a), (b), (c), and (d) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3.

Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 13 to 16.

Mr. Leigh: I believe that the considerable evidence of malpractice in workplace ballots gives ample justification for such an amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Ron Davies: What is the evidence?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman asks for evidence. I shall be delighted to provide it. The recently published pamphlet of Aims of Industry, under the heading
Trades Union Bill is ballot riggers' charter",
said:
In last year's ballot in NALGO where the papers are issued in bulk for distribution in the place of work one member boasts of having cast 129 votes. His main strategem was going round the waste paper baskets filling in discarded ballot papers. This is known as 'putting to good use' ballot papers half of which are generally thrown away.
If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, perhaps he will listen to Kate Losinka, the president of the Civil and Public Services Association, the largest Civil Service union, who said that in the 1983 elections militants in her union held meetings in several rooms, harangued members and then immediately debated a ballot in that emotionally charged atmosphere. It is not surprising that, although Communists can achieve only 1 per cent. of the vote at general elections, in the CPSA they won many posts.
I believe that all that is required—this is what my amendments seek—is a trenchant booklet setting out some answers to questions which moderate trade unionists and the House should be asking. For instance, will each faction fighting elections in trade unions have to appoint returning officers and scrutineers? How will neutrality be achieved in the collation of votes? How will voters identify themselves? Will they have to prove who they are? How will impersonation of those who are abroad or ill be prevented? Most important of all, how will voters at these elections know whether an election is to take place? Will it be advertised on page 3 of The Sun? I doubt it. Of course, under the Bill as at present drafted, they can always go to the certification officer, but a poll last year showed that 87 per cent. of trade unionists had never heard of the certification officer. Under the Bill, will the ballot papers carry a warning from the Government,
Government health warning —rigging may damage your union health."?
Of course they will not.
My amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3, reads as follows:
In line 2, leave out from 'union' to end of line 25 and add
'proposes to hold an election other than by means specified in section 2(6A) of this Act the trade union shall show cause to the Certification Officer that the proposed method of election is fair, equitable and effective, and if the Certification Officer is so satisfied he shall allow the election to be held as proposed by the trade union.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, make by a statutory instrument subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, regulations specifying the procedure for claiming exemption under this section from the requirements of subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act. '.
The effect of the amendrnent is to give power to the certification officer to prevent a workplace ballot proposed for no good reasons. Lord Gowrie in another place said that the Government hoped that postal as opposed to


workplace ballots would become the norm. Indeed, under the Government-inspired Lords amendment No. 1 a trade unionist is given a right to be sent a voting paper at his address. However, in the next breath, by Lords amendment No. 3, the trade union leadership is given a right to throw that overboard. It can satisfy itself that workplace ballots would be free, fair and effective. It is a judge in its own court. It is rather like giving an accused person the chance to choose trial in front of a nobbled jury or in front of a freely selected jury, and then giving the innocent victim the opportunity to appeal. If that is not sophistry, what is?
I predict that when ballots are held in 1986 under the provisions of the Bill, postal ballots will simply be found not to have become the norm. What do the Government mean by the norm? Do they mean 50 per cent.? That is an optimistic figure by any count. They will not achieve 50 per cent. Do they mean a mere handful? Of course it will be a mere handful, possibly what we have at present; that is, basically the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union.
Baroness Cox, who led the revolt initially in the Lords, and who to the very last held out, said:
What is causing deep disappointment to many moderate trade unionists is especially the fact that the presumption for postal ballots is so weak that it can easily be ignored, and the fact that there is no requirement whatever for any form of independent scrutiny to forestall potential malpractice. These omissions highlight perhaps the basic characteristic of both the Bill and the Government amendments—that they provide for a constructive change on a premise of goodwill and good faith, but they fail to give adequate safeguards for situations where these do not pertain. Indeed, these omissions are so serious that one experienced trade unionist has commented that, 'The wheelers and dealers and bully boys will be laughing:" —[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1984; Vol. 453, c. 1090.]
They will be laughing at this.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the noble Baroness was elected by postal ballot or by a workplace ballot?

Mr. Leigh: This is a serious debate, and anybody who knows the Baroness will know her concern for those who are fighting the militants. The hon. Gentleman knows all about militants. The Baroness is concerned for those who are fighting the militants in the workplace, and it is people like the Baroness whom we should be supporting.
Assuming that the Government get their Bill today, I hope that, at least, the Minister will offer to review the working of the Bill. If, as is likely, there are no more ballots in two or three years' time than there are now, I hope that the Goverment will offer to bring in new legislation.
Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 3 says:
'(2) Where a trade union wishes to vary the method of voting in subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act, the trade union shall submit to the Certification Officer an explanation as to why the requirements of that subsection are not being followed and if the Certification Officer is not satisfied with that explanation his report shall be evidence in any court proceedings as to the validity of the subsequent workplace ballot. ' .
In a spirit of compromise, I offer this to the Government. If the reason why they are not prepared to accept my other amendments is that they do not want to force the certification officer into telling the trade union what to do, surely they can at least accept this

compromise. It puts the onus on the trade union to justify a workplace ballot. If the certification officer is not satisfied with that explanation, his adverse comments can be used in proceedings in court.
During the passage of the Bill, in order to convince the unconvinced of the unconvincable, the Government have produced a series of spurious arguments, with which I now deal.
The first and real reason why they are not prepared to make secret postal ballots mandatory is what I would describe as the "two fingers argument". In other words, the Government are concerned that legislation passed in this Parliament will meet the same fate as legislation passed in the early 1970s. Of course trade unionists will object to secret postal ballots, because such ballots will ensure that militants will not be elected. That is the first and only reason for proposing them. If militants in the trade unions are not prepared to accept secret postal ballots as stipulated in my amendments, why should they be prepared to accept workplace ballots as stipulated in the Bill? I do not believe that they will.
The next argument adduced by the Government is that workplace ballots produce a higher turnout. That is simply not so. There is, of course, a high turnout among the miners, but that is a unique industry, with a limited number of workplaces. The industry is heavily unionised, but even in this industry the practice of dishing out ballot papers at the workplace has been called into question.
The other union often quoted by Ministers is the CPSA—the only major Civil Service union to hold workplace ballots. In 1981 there was a 40 per cent. turnout in that union, but by 1982 that had declined to 30 per cent. and this year it was as low as 25 per cent.
The third argument is that of impracticality. It is said that some unions, such as the National Union of Seamen, cannot use postal ballots. That is fine. Let those unions justify themselves to the certification officer.
The fourth argument is that some workplace ballots are, or could be, genuinely fair. So be it, but that should be justified to the certification officer.
The fifth argument, that the unions cannot produce central registers, is, I believe, nonsense. The electricians' union succeeded in doing so long before the age of efficient computers and, incidentally, saved itself £1,000,000 in arrears.

Mr. Michael Fallon: There is surely a stronger point in favour of my hon. Friend's amendments than he claims credit for. A secret postal ballot would result in correct and up-to-date union membership records, which some of us have long wanted. That would avoid the possibility of the Mickey Mouse branches and membership counting that we have seen in the past.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point.
The next argument is that we should leave it to the moderates such as Frank Chapple. He is a once-in-a-lifetime figure, and we simply cannot expect the average man on the shop floor to approach the union bully boys and to demand a secret postal ballot. That simply will not happen.
The last argument is that we shall fall foul of the ILO if we insist on secret postal ballots. That is nonsense. All countries regulate trade unions. If we are to be taken to the ILO simply for insisting on fair secret postal ballots, what are we to fear from that august body?

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): I am somewhat confused. Have not the Government said that they will extricate themselves from the ILO in any event as soon as they are able to do so?

Mr. Leigh: If that is so, it makes my point even stronger. I do not understand why Ministers are so exercised about the ILO.
As the Bill has progressed, the denizens of Caxton house have used all these arguments, but I prefer to listen to a man who fought militants on the shop floor. Writing in The Sunday Times, Frank Chapple said:
MPs should be under no illusion when they vote on Tuesday on the question of workplace versus postal ballots in union elections … MPs should insist on reinstating the earlier plan to make secret postal ballots the rule, rather than the exception. The Governmet's behaviour on this vexed issue is as remarkable as it is disturbing. It has warbled, waffled and prevaricated. Ministers who once enthusiastically backed the postal ballot moved inexplicably to prefer workplace ballots … There is no practical case against postal ballots — only the left's covert anxiety to prevent the extension of democracy to the privacy of the union member's home. Yet the Government will still leave the union to decide on whether the ballots should be postal or at the workplace. True, a complaints procedure will exist. But the onus will be on the individual member to buck the system.
We are being asked to adopt the policy of the preemptive cringe. Like the chandeliered ballroom of the dictator's palace, where gentle persuasion is used to hide the torture chambers below, so the Government by their arguments give respectability to all that is most shady and disreputable in the trade union movement. They turn their backs on men such as Frank Chapple and women such as Kate Losinska, who for years have battled against the militants in our trade union movement.
In a letter to The Times, moderate trade unionists said that militants fear secret postal ballots like Dracula fears the crucifix. I would add, "Or like Frankenstein the powercut and Habgood the thunderbolt." Are we to have the courage of our convictions, or will the supporters of "The Resolute Approach" be dismissed in terms used by a Prime Minister to which the present Prime Minister is often equated:
Decided only to be undecided
Resolved to be irresolute
Adamant for drift
Solid for fluidity
All powerful to be impotent"?

Mr. Ian Mikardo: It is not my function to defend the Secretary of State against the vicious attack of his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I leave the right hon. Gentleman to do that for himself. However, the hon. Gentleman made some observations on which I feel bound to comment.
He used a number of terms in almost shorthand pungency without for a moment seeking to define them. Terms used in a dogmatic way, confusing dogmatism with authority—as the hon. Gentleman did—without being defined, obscure any discussion or debate. I want to turn my attention to two of the terms that he used and to invite the House to think about them.
The hon. Gentleman used the word "militant". In some ways we live in a strange age, in which "do-gooder" has become a pejorative term. When I was a youngster, one was proud to be called a do-gooder, but now one is sneered at. Presumably one gets applauded for being a do-badder.

In exactly the same way, someone who joins an organisation but makes no contribution to the work and welfare of that organisation, apart from his subscription, and who leaves it to others to do the work, is somehow considered to be a desirable person, whereas a chap who does the work is dismissed sneeringly with the term "militant" — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle used the term without defining it, I am entitled to make my definition.
Under my definition, I have been a militant for more than half a century. By that I mean that I have done my share of the chores. I have regularly attended branch meetings. Presumably the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle admires those who stay away. When necessary I have taken office, sometimes even when it has been inconvenient and taken up too much of my leisure time. That is the basis on which trade unions work. I have never sacrificed enough to be a branch secretary. I am amazed at the self-sacrifice of branch secretaries, many of whom give up their leisure time for four evenings a week and even one or two mornings at the weekend. They are the militants——

6 pm

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: rose——

Mr. Mikardo: I shall give way in a moment, although I have a strong suspicion that what the hon. Gentleman wants to say is not important.
I have been militant when it has been necessary. I have participated in many delegations and have volunteered—although perhaps not as often as I should have done—to take collections. After all, someone must do that. Many people do not realise that 95 per cent. of the work of trade unions is carried out voluntarily, without reward, by people in their leisure time. They are the militants. We need militants to keep the unions operating. When I hear hon. Members or anyone else speaking with contempt about militants in trade unions, I know that they have never been involved in the work of trade unions.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Frank Chapple, the Prime Minister, myself and many others would be termed militant under the hon. Gentleman's definition? He defined a militant as someone who takes part actively in the institutions in which they work.

Mr. Mikardo: That is marvellous. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my next point. That is the fate of hon. Members who give way too readily.
My next definition is that of a moderate. I find the use of the word "moderate" to be rather strange. I know Frank Chapple very well, and although we are at odds on many matters, we get on well. We both have East End connections. Frank Chapple does not think of himself as a moderate. Anyone who describes him as a moderate and me as an extremist is turning the truth on its head. No one is a more moderate old geezer than me. Sometimes I think that I am too moderate. Frank is undoubtedly an extremist and I do not think he would object to that description. Conservative Members are falling for Fleet street newspeak. When dealing with political matters, they never use the term Right-wing—they only refer to Left-wing extremists on the one hand and moderates on the other. No one is ever Right-wing. Anyone who is a Right-winger is


automatically a moderate and anyone who is a Left-winger is automatically an extremist. That is why a distinction must be drawn.
I remind the House that Frank Chapple was one of the Communist gang who did the original ballot rigging in the ETU. Trade union reform came about because of Frank Chapple, Frank Haxell and Leslie Cannon. I knew them well; they were the fiddlers three. Only the newcomers to trade union matters, such as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, who still has his mother's milk wet on his lips, look upon Frank Chapple as a great pillar of respectibility.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle dismissed all the Government's arguments rather brusquely. I wish to deal with the argument about the electoral register. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think it was impossible to have an accurate register. One hon. Member said that ballots would help to put the registers straight. I must say that they will not do that, even though I wish that they would. Trade unions need accurate lists of members, but it is difficult to compile them because people change their jobs and move homes without notifying their branch secretaries.
My union distributes a journal by post, but, unhappily, a large percentage are not delivered because members have changed their addresses without notifying their branch secretaries. Someone might move, not simply into the next borough, but, because of a change of job, to another part of the country. Some people have followed the advice of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, got on their bikes and gone somewhere else to work. Those people register in a different branch and branch transfers have to be made. However, branch secretaries work in their spare time, without the aid of typewriters, duplicators and word processors—therefore, branch transfers take a considerable time and electoral registers are not updated.
At the last election, the electoral register in my constituency was about 8 or 9 per cent. inaccurate, leaving aside deaths. In one ward it was 15 per cent. out, despite the fact that the register is compiled by professional people with considerable resources. They spend a great deal of money sending out forms, they employ many clerks and people to knock on doors. Yet the register is still inaccurate. Therefore, we cannot expect too much when the register is composed by amateurs in their spare time.

Mr. Fallon: The register for my constituency may be inaccurate, but at the general election 77 per cent. of the electorate managed to vote — which is a much higher figure than those voting on trade union matters. Some pathetic arguments are being put against the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is easily the most pathetic. He claims that because members have changed their addresses branch secretaries cannot keep their registers up to date. Surely it will be a strong incentive to members who change their addresses to register their new addresses if they know that they might lose their vote in any ballots.

Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Gentleman had ever been a trade union member he would know that there are more compelling reasons for persuading people to notify a change of occupation or address than having a vote once

in a blue moon, yet people still do not do so. There is a great deal of inertia and lethargy. All that Conservatives Members have said is highly theoretical.

Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, of which I am a member, we have postal ballots not only for executive council members but for every other paid officer in the union. Each union member has about 20 postal ballots a year. Nevertheless, every month our union journal carries long messages from the general secretary and other officials begging members to notify the union of their change of address, often to no avail. Despite all the efforts of the officers in our union, the register is at least 10 to 15 per cent. out.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that his union has exactly the same problem as mine. Not only does that happen in trade unions, but it is a common complaint among secretaries of all voluntary organisations, especially those who work in their spare time. They find a register difficult to keep up to date.
In the ordinary way, it would not matter to be 1 or 2 per cent. out, but once it becomes a matter of law anybody who claims not have been sent a ballot paper can cause endless problems by going to law. We have seen how sea lawyers in all sorts of organisations can exploit such a situation. What Conservative Members may say shows that their approach is not based on their experience of life and the organisation and management of trade unions.
It is irrelevant that the percentage turnout at trade union votes is so low. I deplore that. I have spent a lot of time in my union working hard to increase that percentage. I have addressed meetings and begged people to vote. I have said that I do not care how people vote, as long as they vote. I have given a lot of my time to doing that. If the hon. Gentleman has not done that, he should not be complaining about the low level of ballots. That is to be regretted and we should all aim to make democracy more participatory. Too many people in all walks of life are prepared to let others do the chores and even make the decisions.
A trade union is no different from this honourable House in one respect — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) lets me finish, if he shuts his mouth and opens his ears, he will learn something to his advantage. A trade union is full of willing people—a few are willing to work and the rest are willing to let them. Hon. Members know that that is true of the House, a trade union, all voluntary organisations and some non-voluntary organisations as well. We all know that. Those of us who are the workers regret it, but we bear our share of the burden. It is no good being theoretical about all this.

Mr. Martin Stevens: rose——

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): rose——

Mr. Mikardo: Is it more important, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give way to a Front Bencher or a Back Bencher? I shall give way to an old friend, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens).

Mr. Stevens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind gesture. I warn him against saying that I still have my mother's trade union milk splashing over me. I do not think that I have missed more than four or five meetings


of my branch of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs in the past eight years, so I am all right.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman does not attend the union's annual conference when he is the delegate.

Mr. Stevens: If anybody is interested, that intervention is untrue.
With all the imperfections, and in the interests of being practical, does the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) think that more trade union members, or fewer would vote if we had a personal ballot than if we used the workshop ballot, the branch ballot, or another method?

Mr. Mikardo: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman defends himself so vigorously against an accusation that I never made. I was not referring to him when I spoke of people not knowing how the unions work. I was speaking of somebody else. Nevertheless, he had better be careful or he might be run down as militant. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know, nor does anyone else. But there would be a lot more complaints, rows and a lot more time taken up of busy honorary branch secretaries. I do not want to see that happen. It is difficult enough to get chaps to volunteer for such jobs now. I do not want to make it any worse.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman said that his union's journal was sent out by post to his members. No doubt that is because he feels that his members would be more likely to receive the journal. Why is it that he does not send the ballots out by post or give out the journals at the branch meetings when the votes are cast in the election? At the branch meetings only 2 per cent. of his members bother to vote. Therefore, it is difficult for the House to understand his argument when he is prepared to send his journals out by post but does not want to send his ballots out by post.

Mr. Mikardo: I was not surprised to see the hon. Gentleman bob up. He was on the same theme during the Committee and Report stages, literally ad nauseum. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. It is not that I am prepared to do this or that. I do not decide the union's procedure. They are decided by the members. The journals are sent out by post because that is what the members ask for. The ballots are conducted at branch meetings because that is what the members ask for. As I have given that answer to the hon. Gentleman goodness knows how many times since we started the Committee stage, I hope that it will now have penetrated even his concrete and will have sunk in at last.
Those who support the amendment do so without cognisance of the practicalities. One has to deal with life as it is and not see it as some ideal picture of life which is much better organised than it actually is. If the amendment were agreed to it would cause endless trouble for little gain. I suspect that that is one reason why the Government are resisting it. No doubt we shall hear about that in due course from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have much sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), but we are dealing with a carthorse which, even if taken to water, cannot be made to drink. Union postal ballots have a notoriously poor response from the

members. I support the Lords amendments on the assumption that the register of addresses of union members will be available to the public and not be secret. I should welcome an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the register will be open to the public in the same way as a list of shareholders in a limited liability company.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that a person who joins a union may have an employer who is opposed to trade unionism? There are many employers of that sort who contribute financially to the Conservative party. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the employer should have access to information that will reveal that this employee has joined a trade union?

Mr. Thurnham: Certainly. I further query the presumption that ballots will be postal unless the union is satisfied that workplace ballots will meet all the necessary requirements. Surely the employer, not the union, should be so satisfied. The employer is providing the jobs, and he should be fully satisfied that his employees have been properly balloted. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's assurances on that point.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is appropriate that the debate is taking place against the background of the industrial action that has been with us over recent weeks. We have seen some of the events and actions which have given rise to public pressure for the changes which are encompassed in the Bill and which some of us believe should be made to go further along the lines of the amendments which we have tabled.
On our television screens we saw the dockers balloting by a show of hands at Dover. It was a disputed ballot which brought out the men in that port, held up trade to the continent for a considerable period and almost stopped nearly 250,000 people travelling to the continent on their holidays. That is clearly an inadequate system for balloting union members on whether industrial action should be taken. The Bill will deal with such ballots. I acknowledge that the Bill will have that effect. I hope that balloting by a show of hands will be brought to an end if the Bill succeeds in its purpose. Those of us who want to see more democratic procedures will welcome that.
We have not seen a proper ballot being taken in the miners' dispute, despite that being provided for in the rules of the union.

Mr. Richard Holt: We know that members of the National Union of Mineworkers who have had the opportunity to vote have voted against the strike.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I acknowledge that. However, the National Union of Mineworkers has not organised a national ballot. I think that it is the view of most people that the leadership of the NUM has sought deliberately to avoid such a ballot, because it fears that the outcome would be a rejection of the industrial action that it is proposing.
6.15 pm
Much has been said about the workplace ballots that have taken place within the NUM. I do not want to embarrass the Minister of State, Department of Employment too much, but in Committee he presented the NUM's workplace balloting as an example that deserved support. That was the view of the chairman of the Conservative party. It is worth while considering the way


in which that balloting has operated in the past, especially in the election of the union's general secretary, Mr. Peter Heathfield. There was a close fight, and the contender lost by slightly more than 3,000 votes. I have brought the facts of that ballot to the attention of the House on a previous occasion. I shall merely say now that there are grave doubts about the way in which the workplace ballot of the NUM was carried out on that occasion. What happened to the spoilt ballot papers that were referred to by the defeated candidate? He said that he would make inquiries about the ballot papers that were not received by some members. How did the press know about the ballot papers in individual boxes at the pitheads? How did that information appear in the press before the votes were counted in London three or four days later?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about the rights of the individual over those of the union, and I have no doubt that his views are shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends. How does he square his present views with the fact that in 1974 he voted for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which represented a high-water mark in the rights of trade unions over their members? On that occasion, he was joined by every member of what is now the alliance. What has changed in the past 10 years—his sense of what is right, or of what is politically expedient?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman studied the record, he would know that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted for the repeal of the 1971 Act because we believed that it was deeply damaging to industrial relations. That Act did not incorporate the legislation that is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in 1975 my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled a motion calling for postal ballots for trade unions. If he wants to check back, he should read the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech. Some of us have been in favour of postal ballots for trade unions for many years. The amendments that we have tabled represent no recent change in our view.
There is experience of postal balloting within the trade union movement. The Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and its general secretary Mr. Frank Chapple, are advocates of postal balloting, and the experience of that union shows how it works in practice. The AUEW's postal balloting has dramatically improved participation in elections when comparison is made with the old system. It has led to a voting turnout in that union comparable with the turnout in local government elections. I accept that that is not an acceptable level, because we want every union member to participate in all the ballots of his or her union, but voting turnouts have a great deal to do with the size, organisation and history of the union and the procedures that it has adopted over a long period. I have no doubt that some unions will continue to have low voting turnouts while others, by the very nature of their organisation, will have much higher turnouts.
There have been a number of arguments against the proposal——

Mr. Mikardo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I want to draw my remarks to a close.
I shall take up some of the reasons why the Government have opposed the proposal for postal balloting. The amendments propose that postal balloting should be the norm and that workplace balloting should be the exception. The Government have wobbled all over the place in a remarkable way since the Bill was introduced. They have been under pressure from their supporters and from those in the trade union movement who represent the broad spectrum of opinion. I cannot understand the Government's behaviour. There is an overwhelming case for postal balloting, and I cannot understand why they did not provide for it in the Bill. As with so many other issues, they have placed themselves in a dreadful predicament, for which there was no need. If sections of the trade union movement support postal balloting, is it too much to ask a Conservative Government to do so? I hope that Conservative Members will show that they agree with the proposition when the Division takes place.
We are asking in the amendments for the independent supervision of postal ballots. That is vital, as Frank Chapple observed in The Sunday Times. The Minister claims that independent supervision would give rise to a substantial quango. It seems that the Government have shot themselves in the foot yet again. It is the Government who are proposing giving much greater powers to the certification officer. I welcome that, because we pressed for such a system throughout the consideration of the Bill in this place. We want the certification officer to have a greater role. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that that officer can carry out that role. I hope also that his right hon. and hon. Friends will note that it is important that the running of such ballots should not be in the hands of union activists—I do not use the word "activists" in a pejorative sense — who are, by definition, partisan people with a preference for one candidate or another from the Right, the Left, or wherever. An independent body should run those ballots, and proposals in our amendments cater for that.
There is a need also for some flexibility in the operation of postal ballots. We accept that it is wrong that postal ballots should be imposed upon every union. Some unions — for instance, the National Union of Seamen—may find other methods — for example, using their employers' communications systems — to get ballot papers to and from union members within an organisation. Our amendments propose measures whereby that flexibility is allowed, but we do so according to strict criteria, assessed by the certification officer. There can be exceptions to the general rule of imposing postal ballots if the circumstances warrant it and the certification officer approves them.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, there is great evidence of abuse of balloting procedures within the trade union movement. One does not need to look very far to find such abuses. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg. I have been active in the trade union movement for a large part of my life. I was an adviser to the Civil and Public Services Associations for a number of years. During the CPSA's recent election, 82 branches with 13,000 members sent in ballot boxes too late, so their members were effectively disfranchised, and 112 small branches with 7,000


members sent in no ballot papers at all. How can that be satisfactory? What happened in that election? The political complexion of the largest Civil Service union in this country has dramatically turned about, and the Left is in control. The Left has sacked the general secretary from the TUC general council and put a Communist party member of the executive in his place.

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgfield): rose——

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I believe, from my knowledge of the Civil Service trade unions, that that person is totally unrepresentative of the members whom he purports to represent.

Mr. Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: No. I have a lot to say, and I must quickly draw my remarks to a close. That is one outstanding example of branch balloting working defectively. As Frank Chapple said, the only way in which one can overcome those defects is by introducing a system of postal balloting.
I hope that the House will support the view that I believe was inherent in the decision in the other place and go for postal balloting. It is remarkable to look at the way in which the other place took that decision. It was remarkable to see Conservative and Labour Front Benchers going arm-in-arm through the Lobby and being defeated by a coalition of members of the Labour party, including Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and former general secretary of a trade union and Lord Howie; distinguished members of the Conservative party, including Lord Thorneycroft; and members of the alliance. I hope that the same will happen in the House tonight. Back-Bench Members should show the two Front Benches that they are prepared to accept what the whole country wants—postal ballots for trade union elections.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) feels strongly about the arguments between postal ballots and ballots at the workplace. I am bound to say that this afternoon I came into the House without any strong view about that matter. I thought, for perhaps personal tactical reasons, that I would do my best to support the Government. It seemed to me that there was quite a lot to be said for the Government's general argument that one might look slowly at trade union law and, if a particular proposal did not work out, one might reconsider it and perhaps move to a different position.
There has been constant pressure from Conservative Back Benchers upon successive Secretaries of State to go a little faster, and in the past I have been part of that movement. I believe that the success of this legislation depends most of all not upon the enactment of the criminal law but upon the willingness of individuals to take remedies under the civil law. Therefore, there is something to be said for the inherited position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of moving step by step. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) say that one of the arguments that had been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that the proposed amendment was not lawful, because it would be in breach of the International Labour Organisation convention. I

hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that he has never used that argument either publicly or privately. I hope also that he will say that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is entirely wrong about that argument. That argument is an affront to the dignity of the House, and the sooner the House votes in favour of this amendment to demonstrate that it wishes to be free of the ILO convention, the better.
Next year we have the opportunity of getting out of the ILO convention. There is, of course, a general argument against the ILO to the effect that the two Houses of Parliament are best able to judge the ways in which our country shall be ruled. We do not need, thank you very much, rule by abstract principles from foreign powers.

Mr. Mikardo: What about Brussels?

Mr. Budgen: In relation to other institutions, the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty proponent of the general arguments that I have been putting forward. Let me keep to the ILO for the time being.

Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the words he used a moment ago about the ILO could have been used, word for word, by some spokesman in Poland denouncing any attempt by the ILO to look into the claims of Solidarity?

Mr. Budgen: I am not one of those who believe that we have the right to interfere in the internal arrangements of other nations. I am not one of those who speak consistently about the need to conform to human rights in Russia. I am, of course, aware that internal arrangements within another nation state may plainly represent a threat to our security, but I do not believe that it is our duty to impose our views about the balance between individual liberty and the power of the state in other countries. For the sake of argument—I see that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is nodding—I point out that I do not welcome, for instance, the advice that is so generously showered upon those who live in Northern Ireland about the way that they manage their domestic affairs.
We have the good fortune to be able to withdraw from the ILO next year. As I understand it, the Government have not yet taken a decision about that matter. There will be many on these Benches who do not like the idea of being ruled by abstract principles from the ILO. But there is another important point. Conservative Members are not indifferent to the scourge of unemployment. We, most of all, want people to be able to price themselves into work. Ten per cent. of the present, sadly diminished, work force is ruled by various forms of minimum wages councils. We are obliged to continue those councils because of the ILO. I am explaining why that argument is important. If today we——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straining the rules of order. We are not discussing the ILO, except in relation to the words used by the mover of the amendment.

Mr. Budgen: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that my hon. Friends will see this as another opportunity to express their deep resentment at the interference of the ILO. I hope that anyone who has heard, publicly or privately, any argument that this amendment is in breach of the ILO will vote for it. I hope that they will


do that in the belief that the decision as between class cohesion and individual liberty, the question as to whether postal or workplace ballots are practical and whether this amendment is enforceable, are subsidiary. The most important thing is that this Parliament should be able to decide what is right for our people.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Although, like others, I shall speak mainly on the amendment dealing with postal ballots, the amendment dealing with codes of practice is also one on which the House would welcome a reaction from my right hon. Friend. With or without postal ballots, I should have thought that that contained the germ of an idea which should be pursued if possible.
This is a good Bill. It will do a great deal to carry out improvements in the conduct of trade unionism in Great Britain which the trade unions ought by now to have made for themselves. It is their failure to improve their own procedures which has made it necessary for Parliament to legislate.
If the Lords amendments are carried as they stand, the Bill will be better than it was when it left the House a few weeks ago, particularly in relation to this clause, but not quite as good as it might have been if Lord Beloff's amendment had stood. It seemed to me that he had the better of that argument, and so have my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).
I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). After many years in the House, including some in the Labour party, I attended many meetings with the hon. Gentleman, some of them at sub-committees of the national executive, of which he was chairman. I was always intrigued by his verbal facility. I have never heard such a remarkable phrase as the one in which he described himself as being a moderate old geezer. Sitting here, I thought that I probably agreed with the second and third words, but not with the first. Then he went on to explain—this is where the verbal facility became even more extraordinary—that being moderate meant that one did not try hard and did not work hard in one's organisation. The chaps who were militant, by definition, were those who worked hard; the chaps who took home the chores of being branch secretaries and the rest. That is extraordinary.
When I consider, and invite the House to consider, the change in the leadership of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers when Lord Scanlon, as he now is, ceased to be president and Terry Duffy became president —there have been other changes of other senior officers and members of the national committee of the union and so on—I realise that it was a change from militant to moderate membership in the ordinary use of language. It was not a change from people who worked hard to people who had not worked hard. They had all worked hard in the union. It was a change brought about because postal balloting was substituted for workplace balloting after a courageous member of the union took the matter to court and the court ruled that that was what the union's rules had meant all along.
That led, of course, to a change in the union's policy, a change towards a leadership which has been more moderate in the ordinary sense of the word, more representative of the membership, less disruptive of the economy and which gives a better service to the members of the AUEW.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Scanlon, or Mr. Hugh Scanlon as he then was, was elected by postal ballot of the AUEW? Heplayed a leading role in persuading the union to change from branch to postal ballot. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the AUEW has never had a workplace ballot?

Mr. Prentice: The method of holding the ballot before the election of Mr. Duffy was laid down by the court after Mr. Wheakley had taken the matter to court.
A similar change took place in the history of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, or the Electrical Trade Union as it then was. I am going back many years and speaking of the change led by the late Leslie Cannon and Frank Chapple against a Communist leadership, involving a change in the method of balloting, along the lines suggested by these amendments. Since that change, that union has given better service to its members and to the wider community in which it operates. I believe that those are two cases which are relevant to what is being discussed.
I shall take up one further issue in the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. He spoke about the difficulties of having a complete register of members. It will not have escaped his notice, or the notice of other hon. Members, that Lords amendment No. 4 lays a duty upon every trade union
to compile, by the date appointed under Section 18(2A) of this Act, and thereafter maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members".
I need not repeat the wording, but the trade unions have a duty to ensure that the register is accurate.
If that had been an obstacle to accepting postal balloting, it will no longer be an obstacle when the amendment is incorporated in the Bill. If we are to have an up-to-date computerised membership record of every trade union, why not use that record as the basis of postal balloting?
I wish to advance two arguments, one general and one particular, in support of the change. I shall speak, if I may, as someone who joined a trade union when I left school, voluntarily and not in a closed shop, and I have been a trade unionist ever since. I am sad at the declining influence and strength of trade unionism in this country. I believe that on balance trade unionism has done a great deal to raise the status and dignity of men and women at work. In the past 10 or 20 years it has been losing voluntary membership. It may have gained membership by new closed shop arrangements, particularly in the mid-70s, but it has lost membership in recent years. It has lost much more membership than would have been expected from rising unemployment. The main reason has been that the trade union leaders have not been talking sense to their members. The unions have thus attracted less loyalty from their members than in the past and consequently have had less influence on the community at large.
The trade unions need to carry through many far-reaching reforms of attitude. It would not be in order to go into detail, but they would include becoming less party


political and more concerned about improving productivity and ensuring that their members enjoy the benefits of improved productivity. Many changes of that kind are needed, but the unions will not make them unless they become more democratic internally. To carry out the other reforms that are needed, they must first become more responsive to the rank and file in the real sense of the word — that is, the entire membership, not just branch officers, committee members, and so on.
It is a pity that all the unions did not make changes along the lines of those made by the AUEW and the ETU. Most of them, however, have not done so and do not intend to do so. The Lords amendments will leave the existing power brokers in the unions with the option of changing to postal voting or continuing with the existing system. Naturally enough, most of them will go for the latter. We should be legislating to require a postal system unless the unions concerned can prove to the certification officer that they have special reasons for adopting some other procedure.
I agree with the SDP spokesman about the present industrial situation. After the fiasco of the dock strike, there should be a major debate in the branches of the docks section of the TGWU and some heads should roll as a result. The dockers concerned were led into an entirely unnecessary strike and they and their families went without wages for a period of time—fortunately not very long—during which great damage was inflicted on the community, including fellow trade unionists and especially fellow members of the TGWU in the road and commercial section.

Mr. Loyden: Before any dispute can take place in the docks and waterways section of the TGWU, of which I am a member, there must be a national committee meeting, followed by a recalled delegate conference composed of delegates elected by the docks branches. That is the form of democracy that exists in that union. Even after the national committee has met, the delegates from the docks branches must be recalled before any dispute can take place. In both scheme and non-scheme ports the recalled delegates ultimately make the decision, returning to their ports to get it confirmed by the membership. In my view, that is the proper form of democracy and decision making within the union.

Mr. Prentice: As an ex-member of staff of the TGWU I know what the rules are, but the rule book was short-circuited in the most disgraceful way when the strike was called. The dock delegate conference met to call off the strike, but most of the dockers had already gone back to work that morning without waiting for the conference to take place.
6.45 pm
My argument, however, is that a real debate capable of leading to real changes should now be going on among the members of the relevant branches. They should be asking why things went wrong and why they were led into a disastrous strike which gained nothing for the ordinary docker. They cannot call Mr. Connolly to account, because he is appointed, not elected. That will not be changed by the Bill. For the same reason, they cannot take that walking disaster, Alex Kitson, to task. The national docks committee is elected from the area docks committees, which in turn are elected by the membership, but not by postal ballots. The elections are supervised by

shop stewards on the spot. Anyone who follows dockland matters will know that the Bill will not change the situation. Even if the Bill were already law it would not bring about the kind of inquest and consequent changes in leadership that should follow the dock strike.

Mr. Mikardo: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that if all the dockers got together and held a post mortem as he suggests they would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as he does? On the contrary, they might think that the strike was well justified. Has he forgotten that the dispute was started by an important member of the Port Employers Association breaking the contract into which he had entered as part of the dock labour scheme? If the union had signed a contract and then broken it, that would have made headlines in every newspaper in the country. Yet Conservative Members manage to discuss the entire strike without mentioning that it was the result of a breach of contract by an employer.

Mr. Prentice: I had not intended to discuss the entire strike. I was simply suggesting that there should be an inquest by those affected. As for the breach of contract, there are procedures to deal with that. Strike action should have been the last resort, not the first resort. Of course, if an inquest were held it might not reach the same conclusions as I do. I am simply suggesting that the law should provide a framework to allow such an inquest to take place in circumstances of this kind. It is no use people grumbling in the bosom of their families or to their friends at the pub if they cannot do anything through their union machinery.
If that is true of the dock strike, it is even more true of the miners' strike. After Scargill's inevitable defeat. there should be a massive inquest throughout the NUM. In this case, I believe that the majority of members of the union oppose the strike. Some 30 per cent. of them are bravely going to work in appallingly difficult circumstances and it is clear that many thousands of others are reluctant strikers who would rather be at work. If there had ever been 50 per cent. in favour of the strike, Scargill would have held the ballot. He funked it because he knew that he would lose. Nevertheless, it should be possible: afterwards, not just to hold an inquest, but to bring about changes of leadership at all levels of the NUM, especially the dismissal of Scargill, who is one of the most disgraceful trade union leaders in the history of trade unionism. That should be possible through postal ballots in which people can vote in secret without the bully boys now committing violence on the so-called picket lines and blackmailing miners' families being in a position to oversee in any way the conduct of the next round of ballots.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the clause to which the amendment relates is about balloting for union office, not about disputes.

Mr. Prentice: In the next round of elections within the NUM for union officers and members of the national executive committee and the area committees, the membership will want to take recent events into account. Given the views of a large number of the members, they may well wish to make changes. They should have a chance to make those changes if they wish, and to do so in a way which is conducive to a fair and unfettered choice. All trade unionists should be able to do that.

Mr. Julian Amery: Is my right hon. Friend advocating a truly democratic form of reselection?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I am. I shall resist the temptation to discuss other aspects of reselection. That debate will be continued elsewhere.
I believe that thousands of NUM members will want to restore their union's self-respect. They will be best able to do that if they have the most democratic procedure—in other words, the postal ballot. That is a general principle, and I am sorry that the Bill falls short of that principle. It is a good Bill, and it is a better Bill with the amendments, but it could be better still. I wish that there were still time for the Government to think again and advise us to take a more radical step towards trade union democracy.

Mr. Michael Foot: The speech that we have just heard was a remarkable one, even in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). As I heard him press the House to accept these amendments, even against the wish of the Government, and heard him suggest that he would like to go even further, I could not help recalling the remark of a famous Lord Halifax — a respectable Lord Halifax who lived centuries ago — that the impudence of a bawd is as nothing to that of a convert. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to show that he is even more extreme than the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in the way in which he wishes to deal with the trade union movement which gave him every opportunity that he has ever had.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked Arthur Scargill in strong personal terms. I dare say that Arthur Scargill can stand that, especially from the right hon. Gentleman. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and others who discuss the miners' strike in those terms that they will not be advancing the cause of a settlement of the dispute. I believe that the orchestrated outburst last year against the miners' leaders—Arthur Scargill in particular—did great damage to the possibility of achieving an early settlement.

Sir Paul Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Foot: I am replying to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Do the right hon. Gentleman's pontifications about what would or would not help to settle the miners' strike have anything to do with the business that we are discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must confess that I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall listen very carefully now.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection, even if it is unnecessary.
The right hon. Gentleman continued to make comments about the docks strike and the terms of its settlement. My comments are relevant, because it is likely that even the Minister who replies will seek to discuss how these provisions may affect the immediate industrial situation. That is something that we are entitled to discuss.
The right hon. Gentleman discussed the docks strike without referring to its origin. Nothing could have been more absurd. The strike originated in a breach of the agreement, and the settlement fortified the system which

prevails in the docks. The House should welcome that outcome just as dockers throughout the country have welcomed it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: If the dockers felt that there had been a breach of the scheme, why was it not possible for them to discuss it? Why was it necessary immediately to go on strike?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was becoming rather anxious while the right hon. Member for Blaenan Gwent (Mr. Foot) was addressing the House. I become even more anxious when another hon. Gentleman attempts to persuade him to follow a path which takes us well away from the amendments on clause 2, which relates to the election of trade union officers.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your invitation to all who intervene in my speech that they should at the same time be in order.
I have listened carefully to the whole debate, although I did not have the advantage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) had, of hearing the debates in Committee. However, when the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle moved his amendment, I did not think that we were supposed to take him seriously. I thought that he was there to make the Government look moderate. It may be that that purpose will be achieved.
Similarly, I thought that some of the amendments moved in the House of Lords—where the manoeuvring is even more skilful—were designed to prove to the country how moderate is the Government's approach to these matters. However, despite their efforts to keep to the narrow road of moderation, the Government keep slipping into extremism. They have done it again in the other place, and in the measures which we are now asked to approve. It has been illustrated once again today that all these measures——

Viscount Cranborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: I will give way in a moment.
These measures are largely irrelevant to the industrial situation. Insofar as they are relevant, they are designed solely to impose restrictions on the rights of trade unionists—rights that have been accepted for generations and are enshrined in the International Labour Organisation charter. I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle does not wish this country to abide by its undertakings under that charter, but some of us believe that when we commit ourselves to a proposition we should stand by it, unless we go to the organisation and ask to be relieved of it.
The important principle established when we signed the ILO charter is relevant to the Bill. That principle was accepted by multitudes of countries all over the world. It is that there shall be no interference by Governments in the way in which trade unions run their affairs. Hundreds of countries manage to abide by it, but the Conservative Government are departing from it. The more we hear from Tory Members this afternoon, the less we can doubt that that is what is happening. The Government are breaking the charter. They are making the country break its word, and seeking to interfere more and more in the ways in which trade unions run their affairs.

Mr. Budgen: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that, as far as possible, trade union law in this country should be decided by the ILO?

Mr. Foot: No, I do not believe that trade union law should be settled by the ILO, but it is my view that when this country signs such charters—charters which have helped to raise union standards in this country and elsewhere—we should stand by that signature and not abandon it.
7 pm
It is not a question of handing over to the ILO. We seek to abide by provisions which we have agreed to, partly in the interests of people in this country and partly in the interests of people throughout the world. I subscribe to that principle. I know that it does not appeal to the hon. and neolithic Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who would not agree with any such proposition. Like Government Members at one stage, we are in favour of subscribing to the ILO charter. Perhaps the Minister will argue that the provisions that his immoderate hon. Friends wish to insert in the Bill will further infringe Britain's obligations under the charter.
That is not the only reason why the Bill is irrelevant to the present industrial situation. The Department of Employment is engaged in producing Bill after Bill to interfere with the rights of trade unions and trade unionists instead of seeking to avoid disputes before they happen. If a proper Department of Employment had been operating, we should not have had a docks strike because there would not have been a threat to the dock labour scheme. If we had had a proper Department of Employment, we should not have had a coal miners' strike because it would have been foreseen.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member's speech is beginning to sound like a Second Reading or bad Third Reading speech. It has nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing. He is presenting us with a load of homilies from the past about how Governments and miners should operate. His speech has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the point. I was myself becoming a little anxious. I hope that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will relate his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair when the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) made a long speech, nearly all of which was about the docks and coal miners' strike. I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, if it was in order, it cannot be out of order, with respect, to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair earlier, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) wishes me to follow the normal rules of debate and to ensure that the Standing Orders and procedures are adhered to.

Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to abide by the rules which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, uphold. As you will know from our long association, I am eager to relieve any of the Chair's anxieties. I was trying to remove something worse than anxieties from the minds of Government Ministers. I thought it relevant to draw attention to the fact that we are about to spend hours and hours discussing the precise

mechanism by which Governments and judges are to interfere with trade union affairs when trade unions should be left to run their own affairs. Trade unions should be left to get on with their business and the Government should perform their proper role in industrial affairs by reestablishing mediation and conciliation, for which, in part the Department of Employment was established to assist.
The Government have become enmeshed in infantile, interfering trade union legislation. As a result we have not had proper assistance from the Department of Employment to deal properly with industrial disputes before they become a crisis. Anyone who has followed the progress of the Bill will know how deeply the Government have got into a mess. If they follow the advice of some they will get into a deeper mess. I hope that the Government will rescue themselves from it.
The Government are running grave risks. I warn the Government, as the House of Lords warned them, that they are in danger of repeating the mistakes made in the 1971 Act. When that Act was discussed warnings were given that the Government——

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the right hon. Member has respect for the rules of the House and for your judgment, but he has made no change in the drift of his speech which has nothing to do with the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That shows that given an inch someone will take a yard. I am trying to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) carefully, but I am not assisted by points of order at frequent intervals. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. Foot: I did not have the advantage of being present during all of the Committee stage, but I have followed carefully what was said in another place and what gave rise to the Lords amendments and the amendments to them. One of the dangers, fully described in the other place, was that involved in the role of the certification officer. The more amendments that are moved to deal with the issue, the deeper the Government get into the mire of having to refer all issues to the certification officer. The more that the Government become entangled in the question whether there should be a workplace ballot, the more that they have to refer issues to the certification officer. The House of Lords explained that that was the legal ramification of the Government's proposals.
During the passage of the 1971 Act, the Government were warned, but they took no notice, that they would destroy some of the institutions such as the central register of trade unions which was accepted as an impartial body. The Government were warned that they would undermine the position of the registrar of trade unions and destroy the whole system of registration.
If the Government proceed to use the certification officer more and more to decide when an individual or union wants to appeal against a decision they will destroy their impartiality. They will destroy the credit of that office which is one of the instruments that we could use to try to get out of the mess left by the 1971 Act.
If the Bill goes through, and if these amendments are added to what is offensive enough, the Government will again destroy faith in arbitration institutions such as the certification officer and in the idea that trade unions can get a fair deal in the courts. All that will be undermined,


and a new Administration will have to come in and start from the bottom to build it all up again. What folly it is for the Government to tear down the very institutions that should prevent the kind of industrial crisis that we now have. However, that is what the Government are doing, that is what this measure will make worse, and that is what these amendments will carry still further. Let us throw out the amendment and throw out the Bill at the same time.

Mr. Renton: It is a great privilege for any Conservative Member to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), particularly when he speaks from the Back Benches. He is much better on the Back Benches than he ever was on the Front Bench. He was getting into a period of what I can only call vintage Foot in the last few minutes of his speech. Listening to him, it was hard to remember that it was he, as Secretary of State for Employment, who introduced two Bills that grossly increased the privileges of the trade union movement, from which much of the trouble we now have stems, and the effects of which it has been necessary for this Government slowly to undo. He did all of this while unemployment was doubling in his constituency.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), I was reminded that the SDP and the Conservative Trade Unionists have vied with each other for some time in their determination to increase the number of postal ballots that are available to ordinary members of trade unions. When I heard, two or three weeks ago, of the amendments that were passed in the other place, I could not help thinking of those words of Gilbert in Iolanthe
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well.
In recent weeks, my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench must have wished that those words held true for the House of Lords in time of peace. The House of Lords in this instance has shown how wrong Gilbert could be, and how effective it can be by amending this Bill for the better.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he had considered the amendments introduced by Lord Beloff, managed to snatch compromise from the jaws of defeat, with his usual success. Today, he has introduced an amended Bill that is, most Conservative Members would agree, very much better on secret postal ballots than it was when it went from this place to the House of Lords. I am glad that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench have had the good sense to look at what the other place has done, to see some of the impracticalities in what it suggested as an immediate measure, but then to build on that to give us the amended Bill.
This is a complicated Bill, and many of its clauses are not at all easy to understand. However, the insistence that there shall, in normal circumstances, be a postal ballot, unless the union thinks that is inappropriate, and that the ordinary member of the trade union, if he thinks that the trade union has not acted properly, shall be able to appeal to the certification officer are good points. Here I disagree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I think that the right of appeal to the certification officer by the ordinary trade union member is an enormous advance. It is the appeal to the High Court, with all the cost that that involves, which has put off many trade union members

from protesting against trade union procedural irregularities. There are not many who have the courage or the cash to go on fighting for years against irregularities in their trade union. The insistence on the right of appeal to the certification officer is an improvement.
7.15 pm
I am sorry that I was not present to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). However, I like his idea of reinforcing what is in the amended Bill with a code of practice. That seems to make a great deal of sense. Most of us, unlike those who express fanatical fears from the Labour Benches, wish to improve the procedure in the trade unions. It will be possible for people to send the Secretary of State suggestions as to how the code of practice should work and, in particular, the practice of holding postal ballots could be improved.
I hope, for example, that the EETPU will co-operate in working out the code of practice. I know that the Conservative Trade Unionists would be pleased to have the chance to play a part in this process. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think hard about the suggestion of a code of practice and will give us a strong reassurance that he will consider it seriously. Only a fool would pretend that the precise circumstances in which ballot papers are issued, who controls their issue and what happens to them after issue, are set out in a watertight procedure. It is quite the opposite.
Hon. Members have already given instances of what can happen to ballot papers. Often, what happens is enough to make one's hair curl. Apart from the disputes that have been mentioned this afternoon, there was the water workers' ballot last spring. It is clear that in that ballot the union procedure was grossly abused, and most of those who were trying to conduct the ballot did not know what happened to the ballot papers or did not know the proper rule book procedure.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who unfortunately is not in his place, has on many occasions in debates on employment Bills said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's intention to change slowly the immunities of the trade unions that it would not work and that such things are easier said than done. I remind him and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of the phrase used by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on trade and industry matters last week in the debate on the Gower report. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said:
self regulation is a privilege". — [Official Report, 16 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 106.]
That remark applies equally well to the trade union movement. When that privilege is abused, it has to be enshrined and reinforced in statute. That is precisely what successive Conservative Ministers have done in the past five years. In my right hon. Friend's phrase, they have had to go with the grain. Equally, they have tried to ensure that, while self-regulation is allowed to stay, it is a privilege that must be strictly monitored. When that privilege is abused, it must be enshrined or supported by statute. I fail to see how Opposition Members can quarrel with that principle, which the Bill, much improved in the other place, seeks to follow.

Mr. Evans: There was a curious omission from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). He did not tell us whether he was elected as chairman of


the Conservative trade unionists group by postal, workshop or branch ballot, or whether ballots are used at all in that organisation.
History will record that the two Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)— I was proud to be a member of both of the Standing Committees—will be remembered long after the Bills introduced by the Conservative Government have been thrown into the dustbin, where they belong, along with the industrial relations legislation.
It is nauseating hypocrisy for Tory Members constantly to insist upon self-regulation for the City of London, despite the appalling scandals within that institution, but to deny to the British trade union movement self-regulation of its own affairs. I might add that British trade unionism is admired by trade unionists throughout the world.
I rise at this stage in the debate because I am sure the House agrees that it is time to draw to a close our discussion on this series of amendments. We must consider 13 more sets of amendments. My right hon. and hon. Friends are quite prepared to sit all night while we discuss them, but I suspect that at about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning Conservative Members will be moaning and groaning to their Whips.
I shall deal briefly with amendment (g), tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It is a disgraceful and outrageous attack upon thousands of honest volunteer trade unionists, who are working seven days a week to conduct the affairs of their unions. The hon. Gentleman should not denounce them in such emotional and sensational language.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we know that there are spivs and crooks in the legal profession, but we do not carry on continuously as if every solicitor and barrister were a crook and a spiv. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, was only too prepared to launch an outrageous attack on honest working men and women who do a very good voluntary job.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the British people decided that there was, sadly, a great deal of criminal conduct among spivs and crooks at the Bar, or among solicitors, it would be right for the House to deal with that? It would be monstrous if the ILO came along and said, "You cannot do that."

Mr. Evans: I was merely making the point—I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with me—that we are all aware that there are a few spivs and crooks in the legal profession, but we do not go on continuously as if every member of that learned profession was a spiv or a crook.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has clearly been taken from "Aims of Industry", as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to admit in his introductory speech. I also suspect that the amendment came from the managerial professional staff liaison group — the MPG — which circulated similar propositions to hon. Members a few days ago. I, for one, have always suspected that there were close links between the MPG and the Conservative Trade Unionists. The amendments were suggested by the MPG and tabled by Right-wing Tory Back Benchers. The MPG is as anti the TUC unions as are Right-wing Tories, the Liberals or the SDP. I am sure that every member of a TUC-affiliated union has taken cognisance of that.
The sum and substance of the amendments is that they will further restrict and diminish the freedoms of trade unions, which the Right wing of the Tory party—often aided and abetted by the Prime Minister—has been doing for the past five years. We utterly reject the concept of the amendments. If necessary, we shall vote against them in the Lobby tonight.

Viscount Cranborne: We heard the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) speak about the importance of definitions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will define what he means by "Right wing", so that I can understand his speech a little better.

Mr. Evans: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take a good, hard look in the mirror when he leaves the House, and he will see precisely what I mean by the phrase "Right wing". If he is still in doubt, I suggest that he reads some of his earlier speeches. Then he will know precisely what I mean.
The SDP amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), aim to restrict the freedoms of trade unions, and to bring in outside bodies to manage and run trade union affairs. That never ceases to amaze me. I am convinced that the British trade union movement has proved conclusively over many years its ability to run its own affairs.
If the trade union movement wanted to bring in outside bodies to count votes in elections—some unions do so now—why do we need that put into statute? Why can we not leave it to the trade unions? Why do we seek to regulate only trade unions with vicious measures like this? Why do we not regulate companies and have postal ballots for company directors, officers of learned societies or for local authority and parliamentary elections? Far from suggesting that we should have compulsory postal ballots for elections, the Government are trying to resist the use of postal ballots for local authority and parliamentary elections.
I turn to the more serious amendments that we have tabled. First, I must make a major complaint to the House. The Bill introduces many substantial changes. It has five new clauses and 10 major amendments. The Government were still tabling amendments last Wednesday 18 July. It is disgraceful that a major Bill that will affect millions of men and women in all walks of life, which has been extensively debated in the Commons, with more than 100 hours spent on it in Committee and two days on Report, and altered substantially, should be given only one day for consideration of Lords amendments. We are entitled to far more time to consider the major changes in the Bill—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should not worry. There are plenty of Labour Members present to speak tonight.
The fact that it has been necessary to make such widespread changes to the Bill justifies the charge that we made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that it was bad—and badly drafted, too. Those charges have been fully justified because the Bill has had to be extensively redrafted.
7.30 pm
We all know the reason for such Bills. This Bill is the product of the Prime Minister's paranoid hatred of trade unions, to which she testified in her speech last week when she denounced trade unions and trade unionists as the enemy within. It is a bit much when the Prime Minister


uses such emotive language. That same attitude was displayed towards GCHQ, but once again the Government's handling of trade union affairs has been judged unlawful by the courts.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the amendment or making a Third reading speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past few minutes not one word has been said about the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hind: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. I heard him the first time, and I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave him then.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is the Chair that governs the conduct of hon. Members, not Back Benchers who drift in and out of the Chamber from time to time.
The truth is that the Government flatly refuse to listen to reasoned arguments about trade unions, trade unionists and their affairs. However, some of the amendments that were accepted in the other place were taken from the arguments that we made in Committee. Some of the arguments that we put forward in Committee were denounced by Ministers at the time as being irrelevant, unacceptable, otiose, and so on, yet they have now quietly been worked into the Bill.
Lords amendment No.1 is the Government's response to the Right-wing peers who sought to impose compulsory postal ballots for the election of members to unions' executive councils. However, all of us know that it is something of a con. There are many amendments, words, legalistic phrases, consequential amendments and new subsections, but when the verbiage is stripped away it is clear that in future there will be workplace ballots for the membership of executive councils unless the unions decide to hold postal ballots. We applaud that sensible and intelligent approach, which reflects our philosophy throughout.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): The hon. Member is in for a surprise.

Mr. Evans: However, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us that he is going to renege once again. Throughout the Bill's passage he has reneged on his promises. In Committee and on Report we put forward that philosophy and suggested that the best way of proceeding was to try to set a framework in which trade union members could govern their own affairs.
I personally favour ballots. My trade union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, holds ballots. However, it holds ballots not only for the executive council. Every member of the AUEW who holds

paid office is subject to election and re-election by the members, using a postal ballot. So no one in the AUEW will listen to any lectures by Tory, SDP or Liberal Members about democracy in the trade union movement. But, sadly, the AUEW has found that the number of members participating in ballots is steadily falling. We started from a high point of about 60 per cent. participation, but unfortunately that figure has now fallen to about 25 per cent.
Conservative Members fail to understand that that lack of participation is due in part to the nature of the elections being held. For example, there may be seven candidates in an election for the entire executive council area of Scotland. The vast majority of the members of the AUEW will scarcely have heard of any of them. At best, they can obtain a brief resume of the candidate's life, and some information about his age, the length of time that he has been in the union and the branch offices that he has held. Unfortunately, union members tend to think that, as they do not know anything about the candidates, they would rather not vote for any of them.
It is an incontestable fact that far more people participate in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. Despite all the allegations of some Conservative Members, the reason for that is that when union members discuss the candidates in their workplace, those who know something about them can give some of the details. All the evidence is that workplace ballots produce a much higher turnout. However, I stress that I personally am in favour of postal ballots. The Bill removes branch ballots. Conservative Members will say "Hear, Hear" to that. But Opposition Members, who have some knowledge of trade union affairs, recognise that there is a place for such ballots in trade union affairs.
Who has asked the employer for his opinion about holding ballots at his place of work? What about the problems and expenditure that he will face? In multi-union plants, in which workers are represented by many unions, it is more than likely that there will be quite frequent elections. That means that the employer will lose quite a lot of time because his employees, instead of producing, will be voting. After all, those employees will have to receive and consider the ballot papers, discuss their contents and then have time in which to vote. Have the Government discussed the issue with the CBI or with the employers? Have they done anything to take the employers' arguments into account?
What would the position be if an employer refused to allow ballots to take place on his premises? What would happen if an employer made it clear that his factory existed to produce goods, not trade union officers? That question must be answered. I suspect that so far no answer has been given.
Far from improving the Bill, the other place has damaged it. It was not a very good Bill to start with, but it is now worse. If it is enacted in its present form, in what way will it be more successful than the Bills that were enacted in 1980 and 1982? In the recent industrial disputes, they have not had any impact. So why should anyone take any notice of this Bill?
No matter how elections are arranged, or what methodology is employed, they are about getting individuals to vote. We have problems, for instance, in local government elections, where we are lucky to get a 30 per cent. turnout. Even in parliamentary elections we are lucky to get a 72 per cent. turnout. All hon. Members


had better keep quiet about the European elections, which were the lowest in Europe, with only a 28 per cent. turnout.
Evidence for workplace ballots shows that we can get a 70 to 80 per cent. turnout. If, as the Government have constantly told us since November, the purpose of the Bill is to persuade trade union members to participate in union affairs and to give unions back to their members, a method that encourages the majority of members to take part in a ballot for union officials is the right one to adopt.
These cobbled-together Lords amendments show how bad and ill-thought out the Bill is. We told the Secretary of State, when he took over the Bill from his predecessor, that it was a bad Bill. We suspect that the future will prove that he has made it even worse. The amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, if accepted, will cripple the Bill completely.

Mr. Hind: I began by listening to the debate as an agnostic. It is interesting to note how support for the Bill appears to be dying down. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) talked about the amendment at great length. Only 10 Opposition Members who claim to feel strongly about the amendments are here. The rest have not even bothered to turn up to debate them.
One of the most importat aspects of the debate, about which I feel strongly, is that the trade union movement — this was typified by the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—regards itself as a state within a state, sacred and untouchable by the law of the land and believes therefore that it should not be required by Parliament or anyone else to put its house in order and alter its regulations.
The most important issue in the debate is that of postal ballots. It is significant that the debate about ballots, whether workplace or postal ballots has arisen in the House. It is necessary for the House to inflict on the trade union movement alterations to its rule book, because it is incapable of doing so itself.
We have heard the classic arguments from the Opposition, such as, "Leave us alone, we shall manage to put our own industrial relations in order." Ballots on the National Union of Mineworkers' strike and the dock strike were mentioned. They are relevant to the debate only because they prove 100 per cent. that the trade union movement is incapable of imposing any form of democratic discipline on its schemes and members. If ever it were necessary to alter its rule book, it must surely be now.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, (Mr. Leigh). He has a good point but I, like other Tory Members who have had much experience of trade union activities, am prepared to accept that there may be a slower and more reasonable way which will not drive the middle ground of the trade union movement into the hands of extremists, many of whom sit on the Labour Benches.
Many Conservative Members will reluctantly support the Government because we foresee that eventually the workplace ballot must be shown to fail, so that we can justify to the general public that it is necessary to have postal ballots. We shall therefore eventually, before the end of this Parliament, have to impose postal ballots on the trade union movement and re-write its rule book.
When we last debated this matter—I stand by what I said and did then—we sought to introduce a clause to

enable union members to opt into paying the political levy, rather than have to opt out of so doing. Any future Bill should cover both matters I have severe reservations about this clause. My spirit is with the amendment, but I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt and my support.

Viscount Cranborne: Today I was approached in the friendly spirit in which such approaches are often made in the Tory party by a good friend in the office of the Patronage Secretary. He said with the wry and tolerant smile that I have come to expect from those in that office, "I see you have become an instant expert on trade union law." I was flattered by his animadversions on the subject. I should like to reply to him in public. Many hon. Members are called upon to make judgments on matters of which they may have little experience. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen longer before they scoff. That is inevitable, as it is in the nature of the House.
I am the first to admit that many hon. Members have had little practical experience of everyday trade union matters. I submit that this is a proper subject for all of us to consider for many reasons and, above all, for one which has led me and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the excellent amendments tabled and debated with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
Over the past decade many Conservative Members have watched a group of extremely courageous people fighting the results of the legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). It leads us to say, "These people, in order to fight their fellow trade unionists, have had to show immense courage and dedication." That is an indictment of British trade unionism. Indeed, it would be an indictment of any British institution.
I listened to the opinions of courageous people, such as Mrs. Losinska of the Civil and Public Services Association, Mr. Frank Chapple of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Workers Union. All of them came to us and said, "We admire many of the things that the Secretary of State is putting in his Bill, but there is one matter of overwhelming importance which is not included and which is the key to his success." That forces me to listen, if only because of my respect —all Conservative Members have this respect—for the courage with which those people have fought for the rights which those involved in parliamentary elections take for granted, and rightly so.
Those people say with the greatest possible emphasis that workplace ballots do not and cannot embody the safeguards which can make for a safe and democratic election in any union. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, all that he lacked to remind me irresistibly of Old Father Time shaking his hoary locks was a scythe and a lantern with which to tread us back over the paths of 1974 and 1976.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman would take us back to the feudal system.

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman had better watch out. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has already repaired some of the damage that I


might have done to my reputation by rebelling this evening. He called me a Right-winger, and that sort of remark can do nothing but help me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
Those people who have condemned the absence of secret postal ballots in my right hon. Friend's otherwise admirable Bill, point out three matters. They say that there can be no secrecy, no freedom from manipulation, and no freedom from pressure in the elections that my right hon. Friend will allow to continue if the amendments are rejected. My right hon. Friend has produced many arguments during the past few days to show why the Bill, as it returned from another place, should remain as it is. I wish to refer him to two such arguments.
First, postal ballots do not produce the size of turnout that makes for a good election. All of us want high turnouts in elections. We deplore the fact that the turnout in parliamentary elections is less than 80 per cent. The experience of the CPSA, which already has workplace ballots, is that there has been a regular decrease in voting since the introduction of that system; and, depending on how one measures the vote, the best estimate of the turnout in its previous election was between 28 and 31 per cent. That is not a distinguished figure when one considers how it compares unfavourably even with the turnout in local government elections.
A high turnout is by no means a guarantee of a fair election. To take an extreme example, one need only consider elections behind the iron curtain to realise that high turnouts do not guarantee fair elections. We must also consider politics in such elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle proposes an enhanced role for the certification officer. He already has a role given to him by my right hon. Friend and in another place. If my right hon. Friend fears that if the certification officer is given the role envisaged in my hon. Friend's amendment he will be regarded as the 'Government's poodle — I suspect that that is his fear — he should reconsider whether the role of the prudent man or the man who is after justice suits him better. The man who is after justice might consider that there is nothing shameful in a Conservative Member putting forward a solution which enhances the possibility of a fair election. Conservative Members should stand pat on that, if on nothing else.
It is too late for us to introduce the amendments which my hon. Friend and I have in mind, but I beseech the Government to consider two matters. The first is to consider how this system is working in a year or 18 months' time——

Mr. Budgen: The Government will come out of the ILO.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend refers to the ILO, but he must not tempt me down that path. I would only repeat what he said. His appeal to the chauvinists in the Conservative party, and the resistance by the chauvinists of the Opposition, was remarkable to behold.
If my right hon. Friend can give us such an assurance this evening, it will be at least some comfort to know that a formal inquiry will ensure that a proper election can take place as a result of the Bill, or that it will have a better chance of doing so.
My hon. Friend's final amendment does something extremely important. It transfers the onus of proof from the individual fighting the union establishment to the union

establishment justifying its conduct of a workplace ballot. I began my speech by talking about courage. We all know the enormous courage that it takes for an individual, whether anonymous or not, to complain about the procedures in some unions. It would be a further guarantee that one does not need courage to exercise the rights which all of us wish to believe our citizens possess. If the Government accepted my hon. Friend's amendment, it would show how much in earnest they were.
I urge my hon. Friends to support this amendment when we divide the House this evening, because I look forward to being able to note an absence of comment in the daily press and in this place on how courageous it is for the members of trade unions to take on those unions if they believe that their practices are unfair. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, thank goodness, has said that she hopes that the brave people who go to work, although their fellow miners are on strike, will not be penalised as a result of the settlement. I hope that if it becomes normal practice, not an act of courage, to exercise one's rights to appeal, we can be assured that all is right in the state of Denmark. At present that is not so. If we are to do the right thing by the courageous people who have fought the good fight for 10 years or more, we must ensure that the amendments which will give them a chance are passed by the House tonight.

8 pm

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that it is the wish of the House that we reach a conclusion on this matter, so I shall speak briefly.
The amendments demonstrate to Conservative Members the value of the other place. Lord Beloff and his supporters have struck a blow for democracy and freedom, and we owe them a great deal for doing so. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government on improving the Bill. I shall nonetheless find it difficult to support my right hon. Friend's position. It is not because I dislike the Bill. On the contrary, I believe it is a good Bill, and the better for having been amended by the House of Lords. Nor is it because I disgree in any way with the administration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or indeed of my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Gummer), who is my near neighbour in Suffolk. I admire them both very much.
But on the question of postal ballot, there is to my mind an issue of principle. The Bill will create the presumption that it will be the norm that henceforth postal ballots shall take place for the election of union leaders. The difference between us, I suspect, is that the Government are satisfied that the unions shall determine whether that postal ballot shall take place, whereas my hon. Friend's amendment will require it to take place unless the unions can show good reason why it should not.
I concede that there will be many cases in which unions can and will make out a case for a postal ballot not taking place. But there is a great deal of difference between requiring a union to show cause that a ballot should not take place and requiring, as the Government would, some individual, some small person, subject to the kind of intimidation that we have all seen in the country, to make his way first to the certification officer and thereafter perhaps to the High Court to change a union's decision. I believe that that would put an unfair onus upon the individual. It is far better to leave the onus on the union to show why a postal ballot ought not to take place.
As I understand it, the Government have three principal objections to the amendment. The first is administrative difficulties. In the 20 years that I have been in the House, administrative difficulties have been given as a reason why there should not be postal ballots for holidaymakers or, indeed, for Britons abroad. But the Government, to their credit, have recently published a White Paper that provides for such postal ballots, despite the vast administrative labryinth needed to cover Britons who are abroad and those who are on holiday. If the administrative difficulties can be overcome in the case of postal votes for these people, they can and should be overcome in the case of postal votes for union leaders.
The second principal objection, as I understand it from the Whips, is that the Government have already made a great step forward in requiring the compulsory register. That I accept. It is an important step forward, and it will be effective. However, if a union's leaders decide—the militants, the Marxist groups, the broad Left front—that it will not have postal ballots, the register will be of no account because the union will not use it, and will not be required to use it. Thus the step forward that the Government have made, which I recognise to the full, is effective only to the extent that the unions choose to use it. In my judgment, many of them will not do so.
The Government's third principal objection has been touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranbourne). It is the fear that the certification officer, like Lord Donaldson before him—and we all remember the experience of the Government of which I was a member—in effect would be run ragged by the unions in that virtually all of them would attempt to go to the courts and thereby to complicate matters. I understand that argument, but if the unions would make a monkey of the certification officer, how on earth can we expect anything different if individuals are expected to go to him with their personal cases? The argument that the certification officer is Thatcher's poodle will be made just as strongly in the case of individuals who go before him as it would be in the case of unions that go before him.
On balance the Government have come a long way. Even if my hon. Friend's amendment proves to be unacceptable to the House, the Bill will still be a good one. The Government will still have achieved a great deal for union democracy. But I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to accept the amendment. If he cannot let him deal precisely with one argument. Over the past 20 perhaps 25 years, the militant Left has been seeking to obtain power in this country via the ballot box. But it has failed at every stage because the British people have rejected it.
They have done so because in free secret ballots the British public will not accept the Fascist Left that is on the march. So what has the Fascist Left done? Failing at the front door, it has gone to the back door of union penetration. The strength of the militant Left has been achieved largely by the undemocratic nature of the elections of leaders of trade unions.
It is precisely because I believe that the postal ballot is the one sure way of allowing the vast majority of union members to reject the hard Left, as the British people have rejected the hard Left, that I believe that as a matter of principle the amendment should be carried.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I do not know whether this is a private argument on the

Conservative Benches or whether we can all join in. I do not know whether Conservative Members want to hog and monopolise the debate or whether any other hon. Member can join in. I had not intended to intervene, and I shall speak only briefly.
I wish to correct a couple of myths that I have heard, not least from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I am a member of a union which lived by secret postal ballots. All our officials were elected every three years. Our executive was elected every year. Every offer from the employers in industrial negotiations was referred back to the members for secret postal ballot. In what we call the chapel., the chapel officials were elected by secret workplace ballot every three months. Indeed, I was one, and I had to be re-elected every three months. I never heard any complaints about those workplace ballots, and there was a high turnout.
I believe that trade unions should be free and independent bodies. The trade unions should determine their own method of elections. I do not think that it is for the state to interfere and to impose one particular method. The Bill does that on the hypothesis that if there are postal ballots, there will be a higher turnout, and the result will be more moderate union leaders. There is no evidence for that. The suggestion comes oddly from the Conservative party, whose chairman is elected not by any secret postal ballot but by an electoral college of one. I do not know by what secret postal ballot the chairman of the Conservative Trade Unionists was elected. Perhaps someone could tell us the answer to that. Hon. Members were not elected by a secret postal ballot. No hon. Member, when selected as a candidate, was selected by secret postal ballot of all the members of the relevant party. These methods were not imposed in the selection and election of hon. Members.
I wish to correct the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to some extent on his research. He perpetuates the myth that two groups exist in the unions—the Left wing and Right wing, or the militants and the moderates. It was suggested that the militants and the Left wing were afraid of elections and fought against them, whereas the moderates and the Right wing were all for them. If the hon. Gentleman studies the history of the trade union movement—I hope that he does—he will find that that is not true. In general, the Right wing—I do not accept these labels, but they are shorthand terms that we all understand—did not want officials to be elected at all. It wanted those officials appointed. In some unions the Right wing was a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Instead, the Left wing fought for elections in an attempt to change the officers.

Mr. Leigh: Then why is the Left now opposing secret postal ballots?

Mr. Leighton: I am not opposed to secret postal ballots. Indeed, my union operates them, although other unions do not. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) belongs to a union which lives by postal ballots, and he does not oppose them in principle. He is however, opposed to the state interfering in free independent unions and imposing by diktat the method of' election.
Let us consider the experience of the four unions which now operate postal ballots. In two of them—the EETPU and the AUEW engineering section—the Right wing has


come out on top. But members of other unions have fought for free postal ballots, including the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.

Mr. Leigh: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leighton: If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about that union, he will confirm that the Left wing has thrived and prospered under postal ballots. I do not seek to make any specific point. I am merely trying to educate Conservative Members so that they understand these things better.

Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glaford and Scunthorpe): rose——

Mr. Leighton: I shall give way in a moment.
In the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Left wing fought for secret postal ballots, including both types of militant—those with a capital M and those with a small m. They achieved postal ballots, as a result of which that union now has Militant officials. I give that example to show that it does not follow that secret postal ballots will necessarily result in the election of Right-wing leaders.
In addition, those four unions—two with Right-wing leaders and two with Left-wing leaders — achieved virtually the same percentage vote in their elections.

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Leighton: I was about to give way to the author of this myth.

Mr. Leigh: I am not for a moment saying that secret postal ballots will prevent the election of a popular Left-winger, as in the case of the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union. I am saying that such ballots will ensure that unpopular Left-wingers are prevented from being elected. Such ballots will prevent intimidation by the bully boys, as could and does happen in workplace ballots.

Mr. Leighton: When the hon. Gentleman moved his amendments, I did not gain the impression that only unpopular Left-wingers would not be elected. The hon. Gentleman put a different gloss on it.
The National Union of Seamen is an interesting case. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study the history of a union and learn about ballot rigging, he should look at that union. Those who fought against ballot rigging and for the extension of postal ballots to more officials were helped in their election campaign by being mentioned by the then right hon. Member for Huyton. The Left wing in that union succeeded in extending secret postal balloting, and it is now prospering and thriving as a result.
The CPSA has been mentioned as a union which has workplace voting. It was said that initially such workplace ballots achieved a 40 per cent. turnout. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has returned, because he is an expert on the CPSA. He will confirm that initially there was a 40 per cent. vote. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that afterwards that vote dropped — [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) will not prevent the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle from listening to the valuable things that I am saying. It is true that the CPSA vote dropped to 25 per

cent., but my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North will confirm that, after the AUEW introduced postal voting, its voting turnout dropped in subsequent years.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that it was dreadful that only 25 per cent. of members should vote in a workplace ballot, so I shall give way to him if he can tell me which union achieves a 25 per cent. vote under a postal voting system. It seems that the hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman deliberately seeks to misunderstand. It may be true that in certain circumstances — perhaps in all circumstances — a workplace ballot achieves a higher turnout than a secret postal ballot. If, as in the case of NALGO, that is due to one man voting 129 times by picking unused ballot papers out of dustbins, what exactly does the hon. Gentleman's point prove?

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is blushing. That is the most wriggling, unpersuasive argument that I have heard. The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who was a consultant for that union, will tell us whether it is possible for one man to vote 100 times, although I know that there were once irregularities in that union.
I shall, however, read Hansard tomorrow and send the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the appropriate cutting, because he argued that in workplace ballots the turnout dropped to 25 per cent. whereas it would be higher under the postal ballot system. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot name one union which operates postal voting and which achieves anything like a 25 per cent. turnout. It is not surprising, if the hon. Gentleman gets those simple facts wrong, that he reaches the wrong conclusion at the end of the day.
The workplace ballot is valid and legitimate. When the National Union of Mineworkers elected Mr. Scargill in a workplace ballot there was a turnout of 80 per cent. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding agreement. It is convenient to vote at the workplace. I was elected through a proper system of ballot boxes in the canteen. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell free and independent trade unions how to conduct their affairs, or to say that one method is better than another.
I urge the hon. Gentleman further to study the fascinating subject of trade union elections. No other institution in Britain consults its members more systematically, regularly or frequently than does the trade union movement. It sets us all a good example.

Mr. Best: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that the Left wing is in favour of secret postal ballots, and that they did not lead to either the Right or the Left being elected. He makes a point in favour of the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) mentioned courage during his excellent speech. I shall not be faint-hearted tonight. However, ultimately my hon. Friend has another place to which he can go—I do not, but I shall not be deterred because of that. I am given extra heart by the comments of Opposition Members who wish to retain the Bill as it stands and reject the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
Both the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East said


that turnout was more important than unimpeded democratic rights. The gravamen of their speeches was that the all-important matter was turnout. The logical conclusion is that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North would argue for compulsory voting in national elections, such as there is in Australia. He gave the impression that elections in trade union matters were too much trouble—too much trouble to distribute the ballot papers, too much trouble for people to take cognisance of those standing for election, and too much trouble to learn a little about the matter. As one of my hon. Friends said from a sedentary position, they want everything done for them. I am, therefore, persuaded in favour of the amendment.
Although it is awkward to have certain matters articulated in the publicity of this place, I think that my hon. Friends would regard me as a moderate. However, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) appears to believe me to be a militant Right-winger. Such a description could be of assistance in certain cases, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, I fear that what little good the description may have done me has been undone by the fact that it came from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman painted a fascinating scenario. With respect to him, I shall go into the Lobby tonight with a far greater sense of adventure than I have during the past five years. He likened this place to a trade union. When we go through the Lobbies tonight, that will be akin to a workplace ballot. In likening this place to a trade union, the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no intimidation—which we know to be true—and no pressure—which we all know. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's analogy has some validity.
I am forced to suspect the Opposition's wish to oppose the amendment and their over-support for the Bill as it stands. If I had any doubt previously on how I should vote, that doubt has been resolved by the comments of Opposition Members which I did not find persuasive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take offence if I say he is the white queen of the Labour party, and that if he says something three times we must believe it to be true. I suspect that most of us will not fall for that.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's observations about my speech. I find it strange that someone who says that he does not wish to be offensive, can then make an extremely offensive remark. However, I shall not lose any sleep over the hon. Gentleman's burblings.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that turnout is not the most important matter. However, he should not be surprised that a great deal of attention has been paid to turnout, because throughout the Committee and Report stages the Minister did not make one speech that did not concentrate on turnout. I am sorry that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have followed that idiotic example.

Mr. Best: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he is obviously on the horns of a dilemma. He seeks to criticise the Minister for concentrating on turnout, yet he deploys that argument in opposing the amendment. My remark about the white queen was not intended to be offensive, as he will discover if he reads "Alice in Wonderland". Indeed I am surprised that he has not read it, because it is compulsory reading for the Labour party.
The Bill is important; it is a tribute to the Government that it is before the House tonight. It redresses so many wrongs. It is intolerable in a democratic society that people achieve and remain in office without being subject to the democratic will of those whom they purport to represent. It is a matter of individual freedom. Anyone would be moved by the representations that we heard earlier today from moderate members of trade unions—all of whom are staunch Socialists. One hon. Member spoke of his experience of six trade unions and the need for secret postal ballots. Other hon. Members referred to the engineering section of the AUEW, which is in favour of postal ballots.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North is in great difficulty. He says that he is in favour of secret postal ballots, but at the same time he is seeking to dissuade his hon. Friends from supporting the amendment. If, as is envisaged in the Bill, the courts can order a postal ballot, why is it not right for a secret postal ballot to exist ab initio? That is a fundamental point which has not been fully addressed this evening. Indeed, it was my noble Friend Lord Gowrie who said:
The Government wish to do everything practicable to ensure the spread of postal balloting … the best safeguard against intimidation and malpractice … wherever possible the union member should be allowed to cast his vote away from the … workplace."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 277.]
What is wrong with postal ballots? It has been suggested that they would put us in difficulty with the ILO.

Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the handout from the Conservative party's research department helpfully pointed out that in the other place Government spokesmen argued against the amendment on the ground that it represented an unacceptable degree of state interference in union affairs in contravention of our obligations to the ILO?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has made his point. I have some care and regard for international obligations that Britain enters into. We should look carefully at those obligations before we seek to contravene them. By the same token it must be right that there are at times— I hope many — when we in Britain can add something beneficial to the corpus of international law rather than merely accepting its formation by others and as it stands at present. That is what the House should be doing tonight. We should be saying that the ILO convention is not necessarily holy writ which should be observed at all costs, but that it is capable of being ameliorated.
Postal ballots are the only safeguard to individual rights. They are the best way of conducting trade union elections. Those are not my words and views alone but those of the personification of the Conservative party in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) for that gracious introduction. I hope that I shall in no way seek to intimidate him tonight but that, by his vivid intelligence, he will be able to appreciate the force of the points that I seek to make in support of the Lords amendments that are before the House and in inviting the House not to accept the range of amendments that have been tabled to the Lords amendments.
Many speeches have kindly welcomed the return of the Bill. It has been much enhanced by the amendments that have been made in another place. I shall refer to certain improvements that any fair-minded person would recognise as a major achievement and improvement in the corporations of industrial law. The debate has dealt particularly with the arrangements for ballots for the election of members of the principal executive committees of trade unions. The Bill includes the important provision that for any strike or other industrial action to have immunity there should have been a ballot beforehand. Nobody in Britain, after the recent events in the ports or the continuing events in the mines, is in any doubt about the appropriateness and value of that provision. I know that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I hope for every hon. Member, when I say that the sooner that that becomes the law of the land the better. The Bill also includes arrangements for periodic ballots for political funds which we debated at some length on Report and earlier.
Quite apart from the merits of the arguments, not the least of my considerations is my wish that the Bill should become the law of the land at the earliest possible date. It will not have escaped the attention of those of my hon. Friends who have taken a close interest in the Bill that, provided that we are able to agree with their Lordships in their amendments, the Bill can achieve the Royal Assent and part II of the Bill will take effect two months after that. That is a not unimportant consideration at present and I am most anxious to see that we achieve it.
As the Bill has been away from the House for a while and as some of my hon. Friends may not have it freshly in their minds, it is important to understand that the whole basis on which we have embarked on this further reform, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and carried forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is a step-by-step approach by which we are steadily establishing not impossible hurdles for people to overcome, not inevitably and incredibly complex laws and regulations which then give an excuse for the militants and extremists to plead the impossibility of observing, but what by any fair and reasonable test ought to apply in any democracy and free institution. The legisation has sought to balance that against what my right hon. and hon. Friends will defend to the death—the freedom of the individual and the proper rights and freedom of that individual in a free society.
Although we had a little jovial xenophobia from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in his cracks about the ILO, and in the remarks of my hon. friend the Member for Ynys Mon, the complexity of international law to which Britain is a signatory under convention 87 is contained in this simple sentence:
Workers and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
I do not regard that as a gross interference with our national law but as something that certainly every Conservative Member would wish to see established and available more widely around the world. I hope that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends in paying

tribute to the work that the ILO is doing in its condemnation of the treatment of Solidarity in Poland because it is in the universal application of that freedom and the freedom of the individual that we seek to support it.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) berated my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his criticisms. I know that my hon. Friend will not confuse the denunciation, were it to be so, of a convention covering wages councils with the question of secession from the ILO, which is a separate matter. I am sure that he does not wish to deride the value of international organisations. I am sure that he will remember with me our appreciation of the fact that it was the European Court of Human Rights that pilloried the right hon. Gentleman for his fundamental breach of the convention when, by his own closed shop legislation, he affected the freedom and rights of choice of individual members.
It is against that background that I put this important issue to my right hon. and hon. Friends. We must balance the proper freedoms of individuals if they wish to combine together in their own associations and to fix their own rules with the responsibility that they have to society to see that those rules and organisations are conducted in conformity with basic democractic principles.
I demand for society and express through the House the right to certain basic standards and principles. It is Parliament that gives privileges to trade unions. It gives them immunity from prosecution in industrial action. Therefore, Parliament is entitled to see that certain minimum tests are observed in that situation. That does not infringe the basic freedoms that people shold enjoy in Britain.
I have already referred to society's right to ask — indeed, to expect—that those who lead trade unions are properly elected by proper democratic principles. If society is to be disrupted by strikes and other forms of industrial action, it is right that the simple and basic test of a vote and a secret ballot before such action is taken is observed and implemented if society is to confer on that action immunity from prosecution. The tests that we are imposing in the Bill are not objectionable. They pass the test that I put before the House for they are manifestly reasonable and acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the British people.
The amendments from another place have at their heart a concern that we all share. I trust that all hon. Members are concerned about the fairness of union elections. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) moved the amendment one or two Opposition Members chose to heckle him when he presented any evidence of intimidation, mischief and malpractice. I do not think that there is a Member of this place who has taken any close interest in industrial matters who does not know that in some union elections there is abuse and malpractice and, in some instances, gross intimidation. It is difficult for any Opposition Member to suggest that that is never so when we observe the behaviour that is taking place and the lengths to which individuals are prepared to go in the miners' dispute to impose their will on what may often be an unwilling majority.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State has made a grave allegation. We are discussing the election of trade unions'


executive councils and the right hon. Gentleman has talked about intimidation. Can he give the House one example of intimidation in the election of any executive council of any trade union?

Mr. King: One of the features of successful intimidation is the success with which intimidators are able to cover their tracks. There is a host of malpractices in the conduct of union elections and some of them have appeared in print. However, I do not intend to take up the time of the House by dealing with them individually. I hope that the House in its entirety is committed to freedom and fairness in trade union elections.

Mr. Foot: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. King: I should like to complete this part of my speech before doing so. There is evidence of intimidation, mischief and malpractice, and distortions can flow from low turnouts. I have no evidence of any postal ballot that has achieved a higher turnout than a workplace ballot.
The real evil that the Bill is designed to eliminate, and which it specifically proscribes as it returns from another place, is the branch ballot. It is unfortunate that the debate has tended to suggest that we are confining ourselves to the relative merits of the postal ballot and the workplace ballot. The majority of union elections are conducted by means of the branch ballot. The Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs provides a good example of the results of branch ballots. The president of the ASTMS was elected on a 2 per cent. poll of the members. Branch ballots are often held in the back rooms of pubs at late hours on November nights.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is making the most extraordinary statements. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) wants to intervene in his speech. It is my understanding that the entire House wishes to hear my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order. Many extraordinary statements are made in the House.

Mr. King: I give way to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has made serious charges of malpractice. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), he could not produce one instance of malpractice. This is a repetition of what happened in another place when similar charges of malpractice were levelled. They were challenged time and again by Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy, who asked Government spokesmen to substantiate their charges. Like the Secretary of State, they could not substantiate what they had said. Will the right hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to withdraw?

Mr. King: I did not wish to deal in detail with allegations of malpractice. I am more interested, in establishing the most appropriate basis—I thought that in this instance I would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman—for eliminating the possibility of intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman might care to study a few appropriate chapters in Mr. Sid Weighell's book entitled "On the Rails". The right hon. Gentleman should study

some of his evidence and comments. I do not wish to enlarge on allegations of malpractice, for it is not ray purpose to vilify trade unions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) has said, it is the Government's purpose to establish principles on which we can achieve fairer elections. The abuse of the open meeting and the show of hands and the abuse of the branch meeting——

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House that anyone speaking from the Front Benches shall address the Chair? You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the reporters find this practice helpful. The right hon. Gentleman will persist in addressing the other end of the Chamber.

Mr. King: That is a fair comment to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to you and the hon. Gentleman.
The abuse of the branch ballot and the holding of meetings at inconvenient times at inconvenient places such as the back room of a pub on the night a European cup final is being shown on television, a meeting that may well be badly advertised and which ensures that only a minute number of members attend, are practices that do not encourage full participation. Such practices do not lend themselves to participatory democracy in trade union elections. The prime objective of our proposals is to eliminate the branch ballot. That practice will be ruled out by the Bill.
I must accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle grossly overstated the difference between the Bill's provisions and the amendments which he is proposing. I think that he was considerably less than gracious to those in another place who considered the Bill in great detail and tabled a number of amendments. We should pay tribute to their work. Opposition Members are all too ready to pay tribute to their Lordships when they like what they do and all too ready to criticise hem when their actions do not suit their position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was suitably appreciative of what the noble Lords did in that respect. There is a difference between the Lords amendments and the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and other hon. Members who have spoken. The amendments to the Lords amendment ask for mandatory postal ballots — not universally—with exemptions for those circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to have a mandatory postal ballot. The proposals that I recommended to the House have a presumption in favour of a postal ballot. There will be a workplace ballot only if that ballot can pass the tests of being free, fair, convenient, secret, free from intimidation, and involving the marking of a piece of paper. Those are the clear tests. Those who believe that the workplace ballot is inevitably capable of massive manipulation do not appear to include Mr. Scargill in the number. It is significant that Mr. Scargill seems now not to have the same confidence that he has the power to rig the outcome of the ballot.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle recognises a problem involving exemptions. Who is to grant them? On what basis, rules and detailed procedures are those exemptions to be granted? Are not the courts of the land sufficient?


That is the key to the Government's proposals. Must we set up another body? It has been suggested that the Secretary of State of whatever Government are in power will have the power to determine the rules of election of individual trade unions. It has been suggested that the state officer in the shape of the Certification Officer—that is the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle — should determine the exact arrangements for elections in individual trade unions. I believe that that would lead to considerable difficulties. It provides considerable scope for "militants" on the Left as well as the Right to challenge the rulings of such a certification officer. I believe that that measure would make the whole procedure much more complicated.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: May I explain the merits of the proposals that we are putting forward, and then my hon. Friend might like to comment.
I do not believe that some of my hon. Friends have quite understood the full ramifications of the range of amendments that have been tabled by their Lordships and the way in which they interact significantly to encourage the presumption in favour of the postal ballot. I refer to the amendment supported by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) who believes that the insertion of "the employer" is necessary. That is not so. The measure is intended as a protection for the trade union. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were carried, intimidation by an employer would become the liability of the trade union, and I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do that. I would not recommend to the House that that amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with my point about the position that could arise if an employer refused to co-operate during the workplace ballot?

Mr. King: The employer has a duty under section 2 of the Employment Act 1980 to make facilities available for workplace ballots if they are conducted in conformity with the requirements of that Act. I shall give the full details to the hon. Gentleman. I understand this point.
The amendment supported by the hon. Member of Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) will omit the words, "so far as reasonably practicable".
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that amendment. His measure would automatically disqualify the AUEW and the EETPU from every postal ballot that now exists. Those of my hon. Friends who have consciously taken the decision, as I have, to prefer the method of postal ballots must accept the fact that, despite their belief that a postal ballot is the perfect answer, the AUEW estimates that 200,000 of its members who are entitled to vote never receive a voting paper and 25,000 members who are not entitled to vote receive a voting paper. That is one of the difficulties of maintaining a register. That is why the phrase
so far as reasonably practicable
must, in all honesty, be left in the Bill.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I reassure the Secretary of State that we do not intend to press that amendment. I simply wanted to put down a marker on the form of the words that has been debated in the other place and in Committee.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
At the core of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is the question of the code of practice. My hon. Friend invites the House to encourage the insertion of a requirement for a code of practice which will have minimum criteria and preclude certain practices. I believe that the House understands that I am not keen to include in the code of practice points that I can have in the Bill. Those minimum criteria which I have just spelt out to the House are in the Bill as part of its legal requirements. I do not see the point of repeating them in a code of practice.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend has asked me to comment. I shall, therefore, take this opportunity to congratulate their Lordships on improving the Bill. Surely that does not stop the House from improving the Bill still further, especially by removing the central fallacy which still remains after their Lordships' amendments. The point is that a trade unionist concerned about intimidation must himself go to the High Court via the certification officer. Should there not be a duty on the trade union leadership to justify a workplace rather than a postal ballot? I do not see why the Bill should not be improved in that respect.

Mr. King: I shall seek to explain that point to my hon. Friend, but I certainly accept his first point that the House has, of course, an absolute right to improve the Bill further if it believes that the grounds justify that improvement.
I have sought to make clear the position on the code of practice. Hon. Members have referred also to an independent agency which would issue ballot papers, have those papers returned to it, count the votes, issue the results, and presumably in some way patrol the address list and check the accuracy of registers of members. In other words, that agency would effectively take over the trade union the running of all trade union elections for principal executive committees. Our slogan was "Giving the unions back to their members". It was not to give the unions to a state agency to run. I do not believe that that is the right approach. I shall explain why the further measures that we have included genuinely help union members in their responsibilities within their union.
Some of my hon. Friends have not understood how strong and effective is the phrase that the union
is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements … would not be satisfied.
by not holding a postal ballot. The effect of that is to oblige any union that is not prepared to adopt a postal ballot to consider whether a workplace ballot — the only alternative that the legislation allows — can possibly need all the stringent, democratic safeguards that the Bill provides.
9 pm
Can a workplace ballot be secret? Can the union guarantee that none of its members will be at risk of intimidation or that there will be no other constraint on the voter's freedom to vote for the candidate of his choice? Can a workplace ballot be free of malpractice or manipulation? Above all, will the workplace ballot give members the opportunity to vote at a time and place convenient to them? Only if all those requirements are satisfied will it be safe for a union to opt for a workplace ballot. That is a serious decision that they must reach, because the next proposal that I recommended to their Lordships as a Government amendment is now incorporated in the Bill. If the unions decide to go for the


workplace ballot, consciously deciding that they can meet those requirements, they are open to challenge. Any union member in advance of the ballot can go to the certification officer or the courts. They will have to be satisfied that the union has thought the matter through fully.
If the union does not succeed and is found not to have complied with the requirements, and is taken to court, the requirement that I have inserted in the Bill, which is a significant enhancement of the Bill since it left this place, is that a court then not "may" but "shall" require a re-run of the election. It will have the power to quash the previous election and require the re-run to be held by postal ballot, unless it determines that it is inappropriate to work in that way. There is an onus to hold a postal ballot.

Mr. Best: rose——

Mr. King: The next step we have taken — I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) who is aware of what a significant step forward this is — and one which will be widely welcomed is that we have provided that a trade union member who has a problem and previously may have felt inhibited and worried about going to the courts can now go to the certification officer to have his complaint investigated, provided that he has shown that he is a valid union member and have his anonymity preserved, if necessary.
If the complaint is upheld, the certification officer will be able to issue a legal declaration which will plainly be of assistance to the member when pursuing a just complaint. I do not see that as something that should frighten trade unions. We know that people have unjustified grievances and the certification officer may help in weeding out the frivolous and irrelevant complaints.
In addition,—I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members welcome this further step forward—there is the requirement for the establishment of accurate registers of their members by every trade union. I make no apology for having included this proposal in the Bill. It seems to me incredible that organisations with assets of £50 million, £40 million or £30 million, and with members subscribing £25, £50 or £100 a year can turn round and say that they have no record of membership. That is something which will be of great benefit to unions. The duty to compile the register will start with the Royal Assent. I hope that, with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that could be next week. It would be an important step forward.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister was asked earlier by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) whether that register would be confidential to the trade union or whether it would be available to the public. Will the Minister answer that question?

Mr. King: It will not be available to the public, but it will be the trade unions' duty to keep such a register, and a union member will be entitled to seek access to it to see whether his entry was properly included. I hope that the House will feel that that is the proper answer.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can the Minister tell the trade unions whether under the Employment Act 1980 the Government will provide the means for them to set up these registers and administer them as part of the balloting?

Mr. King: We have no such proposals. The evidence from unions that have set up these registers has shown that by using modern methods of establishing registers they have improved the collection of subscriptions, which has benefited them. I do not see the need to fund them in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn picked up a phrase in an article about who the courageous ones are now, and who the cowards. I have never regarded the question of the approach that we adopt as a question of courage or cowardice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will remember, we tramped through the Lobbies night after night in 1970 and 1971 in the bravest show of determination to achieve trade union reform that this country has ever seen. What are the results? I have to tell my hon. Friends—some of whom wish to go further than we think would be sensible or effective—that we went much further in 1971. We did not just appoint a certification officer with power to establish the rules for elections. We set up a registrar with an oversight over all the rules of a trade union. What did that achieve? Our proposals ran into major obstruction. The step was ineffective.
I want to bring democracy., fairness and better practices to trade union elections. I believe that, if we take the further steps that some of my hon. Friends wish to take, we will play into the hands of the militants who seek more complicated and difficult arrangements because they could challenge them endlessly in the courts. I want to see clear, fair and effective measures which would be of real help to trade union members in this country who are entitled to such help. We want to give union members the opportunity to vote.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), must find himself in an embarrassing position tonight. I have a quotation for him.
Those who oppose the change will have to explain how.in the name of democracy they can deny the chance to vote to the people who make up the party … Do those who oppose the proposals for direct membership voting think that the great majority of party members cannot be trusted to make a judgment?
That is a reference not to a trade union but to a party. The letter is signed "Yours fraternally, Neil Kinnock". It was published today, and sent to hon. Members as part of the campaign for one man, one vote in the Labour party.
The least that we can do is to carry that campaign into trade union elections as well. I believe in the measures in the Bill. I invite my hon. Friends to support them in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 467.

Division No. 424]
[9.08 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fallon, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beith, A. J.
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Budgen, Nick
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Grylls, Michael


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Dover, Den
Hughes, Simon (Southward)






Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnston, Russell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kennedy, Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wainwright, R.


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


Murphy, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wiggin, Jerry


Penhaligon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Keith Best and Mr. John Butterfill.


Sims, Roger





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clarke, Thomas


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clay, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Harry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Coleman, Donald


Baldry, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Conlan, Bernard


Barron, Kevin
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Coombs, Simon


Bell, Stuart
Cope, John


Benn, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corrie, John


Benyon, William
Cowans, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Craigen, J. M.


Berry, Sir Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Bidwell, Sydney
Crouch, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crowther, Stan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tam


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Deakins, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dixon, Donald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dobson, Frank


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dormand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas, Dick


Brinton, Tim
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Durant, Tony


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dykes, Hugh


Browne, John
Eadie, Alex


Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Buchan, Norman
Eggar, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ellis, Raymond


Bulmer, Esmond
Emery, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Butcher, John
Evennett, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Ewing, Harry


Caborn, Richard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Farr, Sir John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Favell, Anthony


Canavan, Dennis
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Carlisle. Kenneth (Lincoln)
Field. Frank (Birkenhead)





Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Fisher, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Flannery, Martin
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fletcher, Alexander
Hunter, Andrew


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Irving, Charles


Forman, Nigel
Jackson, Robert


Forth, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville


Foster, Derek
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Foulkes, George
Jessel, Toby


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
John, Brynmor


Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Franks, Cecil
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Freeman, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Gale, Roger
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Garrett, W. E.
Key, Robert


George, Bruce
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
King, Rt Hon Tom


Glyn, Dr Alan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Godman, Dr Norman
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Golding, John
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Goodlad, Alastair
Knowles, Michael


Gorst, John
Knox, David


Gould, Bryan
Lambie, David


Gourlay, Harry
Lamont, Norman


Gow, Ian
Latham, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lawler, Geoffrey


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Grist, Ian
Leadbitter, Ted


Gummer, John Selwyn
Lee, John (Pendle)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Leighton, Ronald


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lester, Jim


Hanley, Jeremy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Hannam, John
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Hardy, Peter
Lightbown, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Lilley, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Litherland, Robert


Harris, David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Harvey, Robert
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Lord, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Loyden, Edward


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Luce, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Lyell, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
McCartney, Hugh


Haynes, Frank
McCrindle, Robert


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Heathcoat-Amory, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Heddle, John
MacGregor, John


Heffer, Eric S.
McGuire, Michael


Henderson, Barry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hickmet, Richard
McKelvey, William


Hicks, Robert
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maclean, David John


Hill, James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hind, Kenneth
McNamara, Kevin


Hirst, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
McTaggart, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
McWilliam, John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Madden, Max


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Madel, David


Holt, Richard
Major, John


Hordern, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Howard, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Maples, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Marek, Dr John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Marland, Paul


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Marlow, Antony


Hoyle, Douglas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mates, Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Maude, Hon Francis






Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rogers, Allan


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rooker, J. W.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Meacher, Michael
Rost, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Rowe, Andrew


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, William
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mikardo, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ryman, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sheerman, Barry


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shersby, Michael


Moore, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silvester, Fred


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Skinner, Dennis


Mudd, David
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Neale, Gerrard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Needham, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Nellist, David
Snape, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Soley, Clive


Newton, Tony
Spearing, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Speed, Keith


Norris, Steven
Speller, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spencer, Derek


O'Brien, William
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Oppenheim, Philip
Squire, Robin


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Steen, Anthony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stern, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Park, George
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Sumberg, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pavitt, Laurie
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Donald (Calder v)


Pike, Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Porter, Barry
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powley, John
Tinn, James


Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Price, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Redmond, M.
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Walden, George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Ward, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wareing, Robert


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Watson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John





Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Woodcock, Michael


Welsh, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


White, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitfield, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Whitney, Raymond



Williams, Rt Hon A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (d) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 11, after 'him', insert
'by an independent body approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer'.—[Mr. Wrigglesworth]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 469.

Division No. 425]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashdown, Paddy
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Johnston, Russell


Best, Keith
Kennedy, Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kirkwood, Archy


Body, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruinvels, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Murphy, Christopher


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cranborne, Viscount
Penhaligon, David


Dicks, Terry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dover, Den
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry
Wainwright, R.


Gregory, Conal
Wallace, James


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ground, Patrick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grylls, Michael



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hickmet, Richard
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bidwell, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amess, David
Blair, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Ashton, Joe
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyes, Roland


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bright, Graham


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Baldry, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Browne, John


Batiste, Spencer
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Buchan, Norman


Bell, Stuart
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Benn, Tony
Bulmer, Esmond


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, William
Butcher, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Butler, Hon Adam






Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Fletcher, Alexander


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Forman, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foster, Derek


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Foulkes, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Marcus


Cash, William
Franks, Cecil


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Chapman, Sydney
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Chope, Christopher
Freeman, Roger


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gale, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Garrett, W. E.


Clarke, Thomas
George, Bruce


Clay, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clegg, Sir Walter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Cockeram, Eric
Godman, Dr Norman


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Golding, John


Cohen, Harry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Coleman, Donald
Goodlad, Alastair


Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gourlay, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Gow, Ian


Conway, Derek
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cope, John
Grist, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Gummer, John Selwyn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Corrie, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cowans, Harry
Hanley, Jeremy


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hannam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Hardy, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Harris, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Dalyell, Tam
Harvey, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Haselhurst, Alan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Deakins, Eric
Hawksley, Warren


Dewar, Donald
Hayes, J.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney


Dixon, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Dobson, Frank
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dormand, Jack
Heddle, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Heffer, Eric S.


Douglas, Dick
Henderson, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hicks, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Hill, James


Durant, Tony
Hind, Kenneth


Dykes, Hugh
Hirst, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Eastham, Ken
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Eggar, Tim
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ellis, Raymond
Holt, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Hordern, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Howard, Michael


Evennett, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Ewing, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hoyle, Douglas


Farr, Sir John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Favell, Anthony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Hunter, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Irving, Charles
Michie, William


Jackson, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Janner, Hon Greville
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Jessel, Toby
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


John, Brynmor
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Miscampbell, Norman


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moore, John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Key, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mudd, David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Neale, Gerrard


Knowles, Michael
Needham, Richard


Knox, David
Nellist, David


Lambie, David
Nelson, Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Newton, Tony


Lang, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Latham, Michael
Norris, Steven


Lawler, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lawrence, Ivan
O'Brien, William


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Onslow, Cranley


Leadbitter, Ted
Oppenheim, Philip


Lee, John (Pendle)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Leighton, Ronald
Osborn, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ottaway, Richard


Lester, Jim
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Park, George


Lightbown, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Litley, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Litherland, Robert
Parry, Robert


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lord, Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Loyden, Edward
Pawsey, James


Luce, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lyell, Nicholas
Pendry, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


McCrindle, Robert
Pike, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Pollock, Alexander


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Porter, Barry


MacGregor, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Powell, William (Corby)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Powley, John


McKelvey, William
Prescott, John


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Price, Sir David


Maclean, David John
Proctor, K. Harvey


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


McNamara, Kevin
Raffan, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McTaggart, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


McWilliam, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Madel, David
Renton, Tim


Major, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Malone, Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marek, Dr John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Marland, Paul
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Marlow, Antony
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Mates, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maude, Hon Francis
Rogers, Allan


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rooker, J. W.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rost, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Merchant, Piers
Rowlands, Ted


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rumbold, Mrs Angela






Ryder, Richard
Thome, Neil (llford S)


Ryman, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thornton, Malcolm


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Tinn, James


Sayeed, Jonathan
Torney, Tom


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Sheerman, Barry
Trippier, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Viggers, Peter


Silvester, Fred
Waddington, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Skinner, Dennis
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Snape, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Soley, Clive
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Wareing, Robert


Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spencer, Derek
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Weetch, Ken


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
White, James


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Stokes, John
Winnick, David


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Straw, Jack
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodall, Alec


Tapsell, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)



Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

New Clause

MODIFICATION OF SECTION 2 REQUIREMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 3, insert the following new clause—
 .—(1) Where a trade union proposes to hold an election and is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 2 of this Act would not be satisfied in relation to that election if subsection (6A) of that section were to apply as modified by this section, it may proceed as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6A) there were substituted—
(a) have made available to him—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and
(ii) at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him;
or be supplied with, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and
(b) be given—

(i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);

(ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity); or
(iii) as alternatives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunity)."

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out from 'union' to end of line 25 and add
'wishes to vary the method of voting specified in subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act the trade union shall submit to the Certification Officer a claim for exemption from the requirements of that subsection and shall show to the satisfacton of the Certification Officer that the alternative method is at least as fair, democratic and efficient as that specified in that subsection; and the Certification Officer shall, if he is so satisfied, allow the election to be held in the manner proposed by the trade union.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, make by a statutory instrument subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, regulations specifying the procedure for claiming exemption under this section from the requirements of subsection (6A) of section 2 of this Act.' .—[Mr. Wrigglesworth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 459.

Division No. 426]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashdown, Paddy
Johnston, Russell


Bendall, Vivian
Kennedy, Charles


Best, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Body, Richard
Maclennan, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Butterfill, John
Penhaligon, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cranborne, Viscount
Rhodes James, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dover, Den
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry
Wainwright, R.


Gregory, Conal
Wallace, James


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ground, Patrick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grylls, Michael



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hickmet, Richard
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Adley, Robert
Barron, Kevin


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bell, Stuart


Amess, David
Benn, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Anderson, Donald
Benyon, William


Arnold, Tom
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Blair, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bottomley, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baldry, Anthony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Boyes, Roland






Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ellis, Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, John (St, Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Ewing, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Farr, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Favell, Anthony


Browne, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchan, Norman
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, Mark


Burt, Alistair
Flannery, Martin


Butcher, John
Fletcher, Alexander


Butler, Hon Adam
Fookes, Miss Janet


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Forman, Nigel


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forth, Eric


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Fox, Marcus


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Franks, Cecil


Carttiss, Michael
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cash, William
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Chope, Christopher
Gale, Roger


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garrett, W. E.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Clarke, Thomas
Godman, Dr Norman


Clay, Robert
Golding, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cockeram, Eric
Good lad, Alastair


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Gorst, John


Cohen, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gow, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Conway, Derek
Grant, Sir Anthony


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Coombs, Simon
Grist, Ian


Cope, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cormack, Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Corrie, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Cowans, Harry
Hannam, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hardy, Peter


Craigen, J. M.
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Critchley, Julian
Harris, David


Crouch, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Crowther, Stan
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harvey, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Haselhurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hawksley, Warren


Deakins, Eric
Hayes, J.


Dewar, Donald
Hayhoe, Barney


Dickens, Geoffrey
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Dixon, Donald
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dobson, Frank
Heddle, John


Dormand, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Douglas, Dick
Henderson, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hicks, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Hill, James


Durant, Tony
Hind, Kenneth


Dykes, Hugh
Hirst, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Eastham, Ken
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Eggar, Tim
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)





Holt, Richard
Marland, Paul


Hordern, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Howard, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Mates, Michael


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hoyle, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Meacher, Michael


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Merchant, Piers


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Michie, William


Hunter, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Irving, Charles
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Janner, Hon Greville
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Jessel, Toby
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


John, Brynmor
Miscampbell, Norman


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moate, Roger


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Monro, Sir Hector


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Moore, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Mudd, David


Key, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Needham, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Nellist, David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Nelson, Anthony


Knowles, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Knox, David
Newton, Tony


Lambie, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Norris, Steven


Latham, Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Lawler, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William


Lawrence, Ivan
Onslow, Cranley


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Oppenheim, Philip


Leadbitter, Ted
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lee, John (Pendle)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Leighton, Ronald
Osborn, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ottaway, Richard


Lester, Jim
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Park, George


Lightbown, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lilley, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Litherland, Robert
Parry, Robert


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Patchett, Terry


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lord, Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Loyden, Edward
Pawsey, James


Luce, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lyell, Nicholas
Pendry, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


McCrindle, Robert
Pike, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Pollock, Alexander


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Porter, Barry


MacGregor, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Powell, William (Corby)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Powley, John


McKelvey, William
Prescott, John


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Price, Sir David


Maclean, David John
Proctor, K. Harvey


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


McNamara, Kevin
Raffan, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McTaggart, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


McWilliam, John
Redmond, M.


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Madel, David
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Major, John
Renton, Tim


Malins, Humfrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Malone, Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marek, Dr John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian






Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rogers, Allan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rooker, J. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tinn, James


Ryder, Richard
Torney, Tom


Ryman, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sheerman, Barry
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walden, George


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Waller, Gary


Silvester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, John


Skinner, Dennis
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wareing, Robert


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Soley, Clive
Watson, John


Spearing, Nigel
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Weetch, Ken


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spencer, Derek
Welsh, Michael


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitfield, John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Winnick, David


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodall, Alec


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Michael


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Straw, Jack
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sumberg, David



Tapsell, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

New Clause

REGISTER OF MEMBERS' NAMES AND ADDRESSES

Lords amendment:No. 4, insert the following new Clause—
.—(1) It shall be the duty of every trade union—

(a) to compile, by the date appointed under section 18(2A) of this Act, and thereafter maintan a register of the names and proper addresses of its members; and
(b) to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the entries in the register are accurate and are kept up-to-date.
(2) The register may be kept by means of a computer.
(3) Any duty falling upon a branch under this section by reason of its being a trade union shall be treated as having been discharged to the extent to which the union of which it is a branch has discharged that duty instead of the branch.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment.

Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 43.

Mr. Leigh: I do not wish to move amendment (a).

Mr. Ron Davies: I rise to oppose the Lords amendment. During the previous debate the House was treated to an example of the most crass, prejudiced and offensive smears that I have witnessed from Conservative Members. Their approach to the problem of trade unionism is to engage in smear and to trail lies and innuendo in an attempt to gain public support for their approach to industrial relations legislation.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to denounce, or at least to reject, the words of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who referred to the Government inflicting industrial relations legislation upon the trade union movement. I was also disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not remind Viscount Cranborne, the heir to the Sixth Marquis of Salisbury—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During today's debate hon. Members have referred to the other place as the House of Lords, they have referred to peers without giving them their title of noble and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has just referred to an hon. Member by his name. I hope that we shall retain our traditions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member was referred to by his title, which is not in order.

Mr. Davies: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. I accept that I should have referred to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne).
The hon. Gentleman is the heir to the Marquis of Salisbury and the Opposition need no lesson in democracy from someone who, in due course, will be elevated to the other Chamber, and who will take it upon himself to legislate on industrial relations.

Viscount Cranborne: rose——

Mr. Davies: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my comments. I have already apologised to the House for the way in which I referred to the hon. Gentleman. I shall, of course, in future refer to him as the hon. Member for Dorset, South.

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman said that he needed no lessons in democracy from the likes of me. Were it not for the unelected other place, the gratitude of his party would have been misplaced. He should be grateful to the other place for the favour that it has done his party in rejecting certain pieces of Government legislation.

Mr. Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any gratitude on the part of Labour Members is temporal and will be replaced by a determination to ensure that the rules of democracy apply not only to the trade union movement but to the processes of government in Britain.
I oppose Lords amendment No. 4 on three grounds. First, the legislation was framed on the basis of the Government's minimalist approach. It was framed on the basis that the Government seek to ensure——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 23.

Division No. 427]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Alton, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Farr, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Benyon, William
Freeman, Roger


Berry, Sir Anthony
Freud, Clement


Best, Keith
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cartwright, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Corrie, John
Holt, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Howard, Michael


Crouch, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Irving, Charles
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Penhaligon, David


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Johnston, Russell
Porter, Barry


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert CIV Herts)
Powley, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kirkwood, Archy
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Renton, Tim


Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Silvester, Fred


Maclean, David John
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Skeet, T. H. H.


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spence, John


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshlre)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Moore, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steven
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Philip
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trotter, Neville


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitney, Raymond


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Wainwright, R.
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Hon William
Woodcock, Michael


Walden, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Walters, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.


Wheeler, John



Whitfield, John





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bermingham, Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Ellis, Raymond
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman
Weetch, Ken


Kennedy, Charles
Winnick, David


Marek, DrJohn



Mikardo, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Bob Clay and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies: I take this opportunity to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his encouragement to me during the past 10 or so minutes.
Before the interruption I was giving my reasons for opposing Lords amendment No. 4. I said that I had three principal reasons for doing so. The first reason to which I was drawing the attention of the Minister of State was the fact that in debates on the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee the hon. Gentleman said time after time that the principal purpose of the legislation was to use the minimalist approach to ensure, first, that elections to the national executive committee of trade unions were held in accordance with what he determined were fair and accepted practices, and, secondly, that in the event of any industrial action being contemplated by a trade union that union would have to legitimatise its action by the use of a ballot. In justification of that case, the hon. Gentleman said that he strongly favoured, personally and on behalf of the Government, what he called the minimalist approach.
At no time during the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, and during consideration by the other Chamber, was any thought given to launching an attack on the internal organisation of British trade unions such as is encapsulated in Lords amendment No. 4. I put it seriously to the Minister that the content of the amendment takes the Government a long way from their original intention. The amendment is not about democracy. It is not seeking to achieve the objectives which the Government have set for themselves. On the contrary, the measure is moving in another direction. Because the other place has set the Government in that other direction, we are considering consequential amendments Nos. 41 and 43. Amendment No. 43 amends the long title of the Bill.
10.15 pm
My second objection is that the proposal that trade unions should be required by law to set up a register of their members, including their names and addresses, offends all principles of natural justice, and I shall return to that point. There will be many practical difficulties. The net effect of the amendment will not achieve greater participation, ensure wider democracy, or a wider enfranchisement of trade unionists in elections for their national executive committees or in a strike ballot. It will achieve the disruption of British trade unionism. It will impose an intolerable burden upon the voluntary officers of the trade union who, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said earlier, bear a heavy burden in ensuring that trade unionism functions on the basis of the voluntary efforts of its members.
The origin of the amendment will come as no surprise to hon. Members. The Minister will appreciate that the Government had an uncomfortable time when the legislation was considered in the Lords. The Government were forced to accept postal ballots and they beat a hasty retreat from the principle of enforced or mandatory postal ballots when they realised the enormity of the task upon which they had embarked and the problems they would face if the legislation were passed unamended.
When the Government had taken the steps necessary to retreat from that position — that is why we had the previous debate—they had to salvage something from the proposals. They had to have something to offer their more extreme supporters, whom we have seen in full cry this evening. They had to offer them a guarantee of the Government's determination to embark on further and more bitter legislation.
That offer is contained in Lords' amendment No. 4, which stands independently. It is not linked to the proposal for mandatory postal ballots. The Government are aware of the difficulties which they are creating. On 19 June, speaking in the Lords' debate, Lord Beloff said:
The other reason which apparently moves the Government is that it is difficult to keep proper records". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 258.]
Clearly, proper records are required for a postal ballot. I am prepared to believe that the Government would have taken Lord Beloff to one side and explained the Government's anxiety about the practical difficulties. If the Government were in a position to do that on 19 June and persuade Lord Beloff of the wisdom of their case and of the immense burdens that will be placed on trade unions, why are they not prepared in July to come to the House of Commons and say that those arguments are equally valid? I hope that the Minister will answer that point. I have my views on why the Government should have embarked on the amendment on the way that they have.
We have seen the way in which the Government have changed the long title of the legislation with Lords' amemndment No. 43. They have left their principles of minimal involvement and of ensuring what the Minister called time after time in Committee "minimum standards of democracy". They have gone a long way from that. I shall remind the Minister what he said in January in Committee, and I shall remind the Minister later of other words that he used.
On 17 January the Minister of State said:


It is worth underlining that the Government prefer a minimalist approach … which means the least possible interference". — [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1984; c. 484.]
How can the Minister of State say that in January and now, in July, after the deliberations in the other Chamber, come here and say that he and his Government wish to require British trade unions to embark on a programme of listing by name and address all their individual members?
Given the best will in the world, that will pose a challenge that will be beyond the organisation of the British trade unions. The chaos that will ensue will be the responsibility of the Government. They will be called upon to reconcile their oft-stated objective of pursuing a minimalist approach with their requirement that the trade unions should accept this onerous and intolerable burden.
No new evidence was offered in the House of Lords for a changed approach. That being so, we are entitled to ask the Minister what other consultations he has had. Has he consulted the TUC? Has he consulted the largest trade unions? Has he consulted his friends in the management and professional liaison group? Has he consulted any of those groups about the problems which may ensue from the legislation? I suspect that he has not. Certainly the Minister has not undertaken any public consultation. He has not asked the hon. Members who opposed him in Committee whether they have any observations to make. The debates in the House of Lords did not demonstrate that there was a case to be made.
Finally, we are entitled to ask whether the Minister has received any unsolicited representations. We are told time and time again that the Government receive complaints and letters, that there is a seething mass of discontent within the trade union movement and that people are crying out for protective legislation. If the Minister is prepared to advance such arguments on Second Reading and in Committee, we are entitled to ask what unsolicited representations he has received which prove that there is an overwhelming demand in the trade union movement for legislation to require lists of names and addresses of trade union members to be drawn up. I suspect that the Minister will have no answer to that question.
The reason why the Minister is now supporting the Lords amendments is the same as the reason why we had the earlier debate. The Bill received a mauling in Committee. Incidentally, I am in something of a quandary now, because I pointed out to the Government some of the deficiencies in the legislation and now those deficiencies have been corrected, and yet I still oppose the Bill in principle. That is one of the difficulties of parliamentary democracy.
Because the Government were savaged in Committee and in the House of Lords, they have to find a sop to throw to their Back-Bench Members. Those hon. Members are now conspicuous by their absence. Earlier today they treated us to a disgraceful display of brawling and braying in support of mandatory postal ballots, but now that we are discussing the practicalities they are absent. The Minister has to find a sop for those on the Right wing of his party without whom he would not be able to get the legislation through the House. That is the reason for his change of heart.
My second objection is based on the principle of natural justice. It may be that the Department of Employment does

not wish to talk about the principles of natural justice. The treatment of the rights of trade unionists at GCHQ showed how the Department viewed those principles. The Department had to be reminded of them.
I remind the Minister of a statement in a Green Paper issued by his Department in January last year. It said:
The Government is conscious that any legislation must take into account the wide variety and complexity of existing electoral arrangements.
What has changed since then to lead the Government to impose this uniform, mandatory practice on all trade unions regardless of their history, their constitutions, their existing practices, their rule books and all the principles of electoral reform enshrined in their rule books in past decades? What has changed the Government's mind and led them to bring in this draconian measure which I believe is a breach of the principles of natural justice?
Government supporters claim to have received telephone calls from trade unionists complaining of intimidation and the denial of their rights, but although they have been challenged many times to produce evidence, none has been forthcoming. The only objective, independent study was the Donovan report about 15 years ago, which concluded:
Dependent as trade unions are on voluntary labour to a large extent it cannot be expected that their elections will be conducted impeccably in every detail.
In the light of that, why have the Government decided to impose this obligation on trade unions but on no other organisation? No parallel obligation is to be imposed on employers or on the Conservative party. One of my hon. Friends reminded me earlier of a letter from the Conservative party soliciting funds from a former supporter. I say "former" not because the supporter had defected, but because he had died five years earlier. Is it reasonable for the Government to impose on the trade union movement standards of probity and propriety which they cannot observe in their own political organisation?
More important in terms of natural justice are our obligations to the ILO. It was a source of merriment to Conservative Members earlier that the Opposition should take our international obligations seriously, but some of us believe that if we have obligations for the protection of workers here and elsewhere we should respect those obligations. The fifth report of the ILO committee of experts sitting last year concluded in paragraph 172:
The committee considers that legislation which regulates in detail the internal election procedures of trade unions is incompatible with the rights of trade unions recognised by Convention No. 87.
Does the Minister accept that if he argues for the Government's proposals he is arguing that we should abrogate our international responsibilities? Will he at least confess that the Government have had to make an abject concession to the Right wing of the Conservative party and express his regret that this means that our international obligations have to go by the board?
The practical implications for trade unions are among my principal reasons for opposing the amendment. The House of Lords said in effect that it did not matter if this onerous burden was placed on trade unions because modern technology could resolve the problems. It is difficult for Members of this House and members of British trade unions, many of whom have spent a lifetime coping with the problems of maintaining a register with pen and pencil, to accept lectures about computers from unelected Members of the House of Lords.
The Minister will be interested to hear that, speaking on this very amendment, Earl De La Wan described his experience with computers as follows:
I know what it was like getting 1·25 million television subscribers on to a computer. It was jolly difficult; and, my goodness, did we not make some mistakes over the first two years, did not the customers squawk, and did we not get their accounts wrong? Of course we did".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1984; Vol. 453, c. 274.]
The noble Lord was speaking in favour of the amendment.
The consequences for the trade union movement if the amendment is not rejected will involve not only the customers squawking or the accounts being wrong but the trade unions being hauled up before the courts for not being able to comply because, in the nature of their organisation, they are unable to comply with an unreasonable request and imposition.

Mr. John Golding: My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of unions. Has he considered what happens if members refuse to give their addresses? Flow does a union in a free society force its members to give their proper addresses? Is it open to a union, particularly in a closed shop, to expel members if they refuse to give their addresses? If a union has that sanction, how can it operate under the legislation?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that observation, but I cannot answer the question. The legislation puts responsibility on the trade unions, but not on individual members. It does not place responsibility on employers. Many employers are the sole holders of the names and addresses of trade unionists. I refer to the 70 or 80 per cent. of trade unionists who pay their contributions through the check-off system.
The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag when replying to the earlier debate. I am not sure whether he was aware of what he was saying, but in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) he said that individuals would be entitled to go to the certification officer or to the trade union and demand a list of names and addresses of trade unionists. The Minister should not look surprised, though there is no provision in the Bill for that. If the Secretary of State is to treat the civil rights of British trade unionists in such a cavalier manner, the movement is not safe in his hands.
I have a shrewd idea that the Minister will say that, given good will, trade unions will be able to overcome the problems. I remind the Minister of Thatcher's first law, enunciated at the 1922 Committee last week. She said:
Just when you think nothing else can go wrong —something will.
That is exactly what will happen with this amendment. An individual will find that he is missed off the register, that his name is recorded correctly, but that his address is recorded incorrectly and that his papers have been sent to a previous address. He will not receive a ballot paper. He will then go to the certification officer and the trade union.
I remind the Minister of a further statement that he made in Committee. He said:
I understood from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he considered that the Government should encourage the use of computers as an integral part of the Bill.
The amendment states that the register may be kept by means of a computer. The Minister continued:

I see that as an attempt at interference … I have rarely heard in a debate a proposal which is further removed from reality."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1984; c. 496.]
I have no doubt that the same Minister will put the case for acceptance of the amendment.
There are many practical difficulties. I have received representations from the Transport and General Workers Union. It has 500,000 members, a turnover of 1,000 members a day, and well in excess of 1,000 branches. These branches are largely run by volunteers, holding down a job if they are fortunate enough to have one, and trying to cope with their other social responsibilities. The Minister is telling us that such people will be required to comply with the provisions of this amendment, on penalty of being called to a court of law.
This amendment makes legislation which is unacceptable and impractical and which will lead to litigation. It is a proposal which will lead to the disfranchisement of more trade union voters than it will enfranchise. It will lead to disruption, and it will be a diversion. The Minister is aware of that. The purpose of the amendment is to appease those recalcitrant Members without whose support this legislation will not get through, and it is intended to cause discord and disarray within the trade union movement so that it will be less able to resist the onslaughts by the Government on the economic and social welfare of the 10 million trade unionists in this country. I urge the House to reject this amendment.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has spoken at some length, as he did in Committee. Yet again, he has painted a picture of trade unions that is curiously at odds with the perception of trade unions by a larger number of people. We were given an image of trade unions as bodies that are so simply run and so crudely organised that it is impossible for them to keep a list of the names and addresses of their members. My parish church has no difficulty in keeping a list of its members, and earlier this evening we heard that many trade unions have journals that they send out at regular intervals to their members, presumably in some scattered way, as they have neither the names nor addresses of the people to whom they are to be delivered.

Mr. Golding: How many people are there in the hon. Gentleman's church? Is he not aware that union journals are often distributed at the base of the organisation of the trade union movement—the workplace?

Mr. Rowe: My parish has a rather small membership, of perhaps 500 to 600. I agree that that is disappointingly small for a parish church in an area as large as mine.

Mr. Gummer: For the elucidation of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who was not present at the time, will my hon. Friend point out that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said clearly that, although his Members were not allowed to ballot by post, all were sent a copy of the union journal direct to their home addresses by post. The point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is ill founded.

Mr. Rowe: We were asked what has changed since the legislation started its way through Parliament. One answer is that during that period a trade union leader who set out from the beginning to say that if the general election produced a result of which he disapproved it would be


necessary to take to the streets to reverse that result has done precisely that. Although all his members' names and addresses could not be listed, he has nevertheless managed to organise thousands of people to travel all over the country for no other purpose than to intimidate those who want to work. Yet Opposition Members say that that organisation is so incompetently run that it cannot list its members' names and addresses. That is one of the things that has changed.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should control himself.

Mr. Rowe: I find it much easier to control myself than the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers finds it to control his members.
It was also said that the Conservative party found it difficult to organise centrally a list of its members' names and addresses. That was somehow thought to be an adequate reason for trade unions not being able to do it. There are two things to be said about that. First, the Conservative party is busily engaged in computerising its membership. Secondly, it does not claim to want to exercise the sort of power that the trade unions gladly welcome.
It is interesting to note that, when it suits Opposition Members, the trade union movement is portrayed as a small, hole-in-the-corner voluntary organisation that is incapable of organising its affairs, but that it is often also portrayed by them as the exclusive voice of the working class which is capable of holding the country to ransom at the drop of a hat.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman seems very concerned about trade unions, democracy, and so on. But when will the Tory party elect its chairman?

Mr. Rowe: Members of the Standing Committee will have heard that question asked and answered before. Again, two things have to be said. First, the chairmanship of the Conservative party is the chairmanship of the office which is the leader's office. [Laughter.] That has always been so. For the Opposition Members to laugh as though I had made some extraordinary admission is absurd. Anybody with even a slight grasp of history—unlike the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—would understand that, because that has been the position since the chairmanship of the Conservative party was inaugurated. It may, however, be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—not that much appears to be of interest to him — that there is also a chairmanship within the Conservative party that is elected——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was provoked, but his speech does not have a great deal to do with the amendment.

Mr. Rowe: I apologise, of course, Mr. Speaker, for trying to give Opposition Members some information.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the courts are unlikely to intervene in the administration of a trade union—even if they are asked to do so—on the basis of one or two misdirected ballot papers, because everybody understands that one cannot expect 100 per cent. success when directing mail or anything else to many people where there is a rapid turnover.
All those things are perfectly clear, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it is not the Government's intention to take trade unions to court to punish them for being unable to do what any sensible person would concede could not be done with 100 per cent. success. But that does not mean that we should not make an attempt to ensure that organisations which wield the sort of power that trade unions seek to organise should operate in a way that almost every other organisation in this country does regularly and without difficulty. If trade unions are incapable of recording the names and addresses of their members, it is time that they went home.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) raised some important points which the House must consider seriously, because this amendment will have a profound impact upon the trade union movement. I was amused by the hon. Gentleman throwing back at the chairman of the Conservative party his replies to some of the points that I made in Committee. But the hon. Gentleman undermined his case by exaggerating the difficulties which the trade union movement will face.
Under this legislation, it is inevitable that such a register will have to be established, and I have believed for a long time that it is desirable for unions to have records of their membership if they are to give them the service that they deserve in 1984 and, indeed, in the latter part of this century. There is no doubt that the introduction of registers will have a profound impact upon the administration of trade unions, upon the volunteer force that has been mentioned, and upon the central and regional organisations that must keep the records and service the membership register, which is a substantial job.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly exaggerated his case, because of course we have trade unions which already have efficient computerised records of their membership. The first and best example is the EETPU; if the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can obtain from that union a document which I have here and which describes its computerised system, how it has operated, and how it has been an effective means of administering its membership and of contacting its members over the years.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the EETPU's structure and organisation is highly centralised? That highly centralised structure is different from the devolved structure of, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union. It may be perfectly feasible for the EETPU to accept within its constitution a computerised system, but it would not be feasible for a different union with a different decentralised structure.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: The hon. Gentleman is again exaggerating the point. As he says, the EETPU is a rather more centralised union than are many others; but the hon. Gentleman must know that modern technology makes it possible for a decentralised union to keep its records well up to date, either with mini-computers round the country or with on-line facilities, as can be demonstrated by many organisations that have such registers. If 12-year-old children can have computers in their homes, I see no reason why branch secretaries and others should not do the same. Indeed, that is what the trade union movement needs to do. It needs to be ahead of the rest in new technology, especially in its own administration.
The Minister tried to reject my main point in Committee, but he has now changed his mind and come round to the view that these registers should be established and computerised. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State. The House and the Government are imposing upon the trade union movement the installation of registers. If the Government are asking for that, they should provide the resources for the movement to introduce those facilities. The Government, rightly in my view, have introduced provision for financial assistance for balloting in the trade union movement because they said that, as the House was imposing this upon the trade union movement, financial assistance should be given to unions that wished to carry out such ballots to entice them to go down that road. That was a good proposal, and I regret that the trade union movement has not taken up that offer to carry on ballots.
I was interested to note that the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords was also strongly of the opinion that the trade union movement should take up those funds and use them for balloting. I hope that under the Bill it will do that. However, the trade union movement should also be able to use development funds from the Government to install the facilities and the systems that will be necessary to implement the legislation. An unfair burden is put not only on the volunteers but also on the purses of trade unionists and on the central administration of trade unions if that resource is not provided by the Government.
I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us that he will reconsider this in an attempt to persuade the trade union movement to modernise its facilities and to carry out these ballots and the administration of the register in an up-to-date and efficient way that will satisfy not only its members but the House and the general public. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that, and tell us that he is willing to bring forward proposals to provide funds for trade unions to make these changes.

Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on his first appearance on the Front Bench at least on the Floor of the House. We sparred hard in Committee, and it is a pleasure to start again.
It was odd that, in his comments about computers, the hon. Gentleman should have failed to remark that my comments to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) specifically covered his suggestion that the Government should in some way provide money and, as it would seem from his speech, the equipment, on a development basis for trade unions. I said that that would be a very odd departure from practice, and I still say that. It was odd that he did not mention that in his extensive quotations from my speech at that time.
However, that is nothing like as odd as the basis of the argument that the hon. Gentleman now puts forward. He is arguing that it is an onerous and intolerable burden upon a trade union to get the name and address of someone who pays at least £40 or £50 a year to be a member. It is an odd concept that one should ask £40 or £50 a year from someone but that one cannot keep his name and address. It is not a question of quill pens. It is a question of a world in which the simplest computers cost small sums of money, and can be used not only by 12-year-olds but by 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds. Such computers could keep the branch records which would lead on to a centralised list. It seems an odd argument to suggest that that is onerous and intolerable.
It is even odder that that should be so in a movement that finds it perfectly possible to find the names and addresses of its members if it wants to. I notice that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is no longer present. In his speech, he let the cat out of the bag. He said that it was possible to send his union newspaper by post to every member. He did not explain why the newspaper was not available at the back of the branch meeting so that members could collect it on their way out. The reason is that a sufficient number of people do not go to the branch meeting to pick up the newspaper. Evidently it is possible to hold ballots at the branch meeting but not for the Journalto be distributed at the branch meeting.
It becomes even odder when one finds that in the middle of the Journal are to be found the election addresses. They can go by post. It is possible to have a register of the members of ASTMS so that they can receive the election addresses, but, unless they write in specifically—and 240, I believe, did so out of the total membership—they may not have a postal ballot. Is the answer that it is possible to have the kind of register suitable for sending out the bi-monthly journal but not possible to use the register for the purposes of holding a ballot?
It seems much more likely that Labour Members try to use this excuse because they do not want a ballot. The fact that unions need a ballot is very noticeable, because, despite the fact that on a number of occasions I have asked the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar why at the last ASTMS election 98 per cent. of the members did not vote, he still has not given me an answer. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has complained that I have asked him so often that he is fed up with the question. However, I bet that 98 per cent. of the members got their Journal. It seems that some unions are happy to have the names and addresses of their members so that they can get the money and send out their newspapers but are not interested in those names and addresses when it comes to giving democracy.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does not the Minister accept that the root of our objection is that the Government are now, by statute, requiring unions to prepare the register? It is perfectly acceptable for trade unions to prepare a mailing list of their members. Naturally and obviously, every trade union wants to do so. Earlier the Secretary of State quoted the AUEW membership figures. It is widely acknowledged that the AUEW has a good system, but it is 20 per cent. inaccurate. Does not the Minister accept that by its very nature this proposal will remove the voluntary decision of a union to keep such a register and will replace it with a strict statutory code, breach of which will bring a union before the courts?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to advance the argument that trade unions wish to be voluntary bodies on that basis, he must also accept that they do not need the special protections which the law provides. If the argument is that these are merely organisations of the cricket club variety, let them be such organisations without the special legal privileges. However, if unions want those privileges, it must be accepted that they are given to the members of the unions, not to a small, elite group which runs them—not to the 2 per cent. who voted in the ASTMS elections, but to the 100 per cent. who ought to have had the opportunity to vote.

Mr. Ron Davies: Appalling.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but it is true. It is appalling that 98 per cent. did not vote.

Mr. Golding: The Minister said that 98 per cent. of ASTMS members received the Journal. I bet the Minister £5 that that figure is incorrect.

Mr. Gummer: I would simply say that the 98 per cent. who did not vote had much more chance of getting the Journal than they did of casting a vote, because the Journal was sent to them. If the hon. Gentleman can prove that the ASTMS Journal was not sent out to all the members on the list, I shall be happy to provide him with the £5 for which he asks.

Mr. Golding: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way no further. I have offered the hon. Gentleman the £5, and no doubt he will prove that the Journal was not sent out to some members on the union's list.
The argument of the hon. Member for Caerphilly would be much more effective if he could convince me that by opposing this Lords amendment he is suggesting that members of a trade union should not be given the opportunity to vote and should be denied the opportunity to have a ballot because it is too onerous and intolerable a burden, that the practical difficulties are too great and that it is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The hon. Gentleman asked what has changed since we had these debates in Committee. What we have had since then is a series of examples where trade unions have taken action without asking their members whether they wanted to do so.
Let us take one example about votes, which we shall discuss in greater detail later — the dockers in Felixstowe. — [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear that the dockers in Felixstowe were taken out on strike without a vote, but asked for a vote before they returned to work.

Mr. Loyden: That is not true.

Mr. Gummer: Felixstowe is in my constituency. Were the dockers allowed to vote before they went on strike?

Mr. Loyden: Conservative Members are displaying ignorance. After the recall docks delegates conference, which is the appropriate constitutional body, I spoke to a Felixstowe steward who had to return to Felixstowe to inform the dockers of the decision of the conference, and the dockers had to decide whether to support the recommendation.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman means that the delegate returned to Felixstowe and told the dockers that they did not have a vote because the matter had already been decided by the conference. All that verbiage means is that the Felixstowe dockers did not get a vote——

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not maintain the debate on the amendment

before the House, rather than embark upon a debate that will take place on the next series of amendments? The Minister is out of order.

Mr. Gummer: Opposition Members asked what had changed between the debates in Committee and the debates tonight. Throughout the country there have been opportunities for ballots that have not been taken. Therefore, many people have reached the conclusion that only by insisting on a proper register can we ensure that proper votes are taken in an atmosphere where ballots are used instead of intimidation and violence.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister asked why Opposition Members object to the register. I thought that I had given the Minister the reasons why we had objected to the register. We are now dealing with amendment No. 4, which is not about postal ballots. However much the Minister may wish to impress his right hon. and hon. Friends, he must accept that the amendment has nothing to do with ballots; it requires a trade union to keep a register of names and addresses, regardless of whether it is used for a ballot.

Mr. Gummer: The amendment is required because Opposition Members say that ballots cannot be held because unions do not have registers of names and addresses. Therefore, we shall make it necessary for unions to have names and addresses. If someone refuses to give his name and address, he cannot take part in the ballot and the trade union will have done all that is reasonably practical and will not be liable under the law. It is a question of reasonable practicability. It is only because Opposition Members claim that unions do not have names and addresses that the register becomes necessary.
I was especially pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly refer to international obligations. If he accepts our international obligation, no doubt the Opposition will accept the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the British Rail closed shop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is all right for Opposition Members to say that, but it is interesting how they pick and choose their international obligations.
Let me read the ILO statement. Clause 169, on election procedures, says that the legislation in some countries
contains certain rules intended to promote democratic principles within trade union organisations or to ensure that the electoral procedure is conducted in a normal manner and with due respect for the rights of members in order to avoid any dispute arising as to the result of the election. Provisions of this kind clearly do not involve any violation of the principles of freedom of association.
That is precisely what we are enacting in the Bill. We are simply saying that individuals, if they are to vote, ought to have a ballot paper, in which case it would be helpful to have a name and address to which to send that ballot paper. It would also be useful if the name and address were kept up to date centrally. That is what we are doing, and that is in complete conformity with the ILO.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade union movement has no problem in keeping a record of its members when it comes to collecting the levy for the Labour party and in estimating how many votes it has in the block vote for the Labour party conference?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The trade union movement has no difficulty in getting the names and addresses of its members when it wants to get money out of them, to send its publication to them, to exclude them because it happens not to like what they do, and to get the political levy out of them. It is only when it comes to giving them a democratic right that it seems to be so extremely difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised an important point when he showed that it is not impossible to get the names and addresses of members in other organisations. There are many charities with fewer resources than those of the trade union movement which keep central records of large numbers of members on computers which are cheap to run and buy. It is not sensible for Labour Members to say that that is impossible.
As we have heard the argument of Labour Members it has become increasingly obvious that they want to stop a democratic ballot of all the members of a trade union. I find that odd because I read in The Guardian today a letter from the leader of the Labour party in which he lays down how democracy ought to operate in the Labour party. I have many quotes other than those raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As this is a letter supporting a motion put forward by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)——

Mr. Evans: What has that to do with trade union registers?

Mr. Gummer: When it comes to trade unions, Labour Members want to deny the vote to their members, but when it comes to talking about the Labour party they are desperate to extend the vote to the members — [Interruption.] Some of them are. The question before the House this evening is how that register ought to be kept. the register is an essential part of democracy in the trade unions. If the leader of the Labour party is able to beat off his Left wing tomorrow, he will have to have a register as well. He will have to find a way of keeping the members' names and addresses, otherwise the Labour party will not be able to have one man, one vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The
hon. Gentleman must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Gummer: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The question before the House is simply whether we want democracy in the trade unions. The Conservative party supports the members of the trade unions. The Labour party supports those who are unelected by their members.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 169.

Division No. 428]
[11.09 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashdown, Paddy


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Arnold, Tom
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)





Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Baldry, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beith, A. J.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, William
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Best, Keith
Gorst, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Body, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Browne, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Harvey, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayes, J.


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Henderson, Barry


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Hickmet, Richard


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Coombs, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Corrie, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jackson, Robert


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Johnston, Russell


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Farr, Sir John
Kennedy, Charles


Favell, Anthony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Key, Robert


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fletcher, Alexander
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knowles, Michael


Forth, Eric
Knox, David


Fox, Marcus
Lamont, Norman


Franks, Cecil
Lang, Ian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Latham, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan






Lee, John (Pendle)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lester, Jim
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lord, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ryder, Richard


MacGregor, John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Maclean, David John
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Major, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malone, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Silvester, Fred


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Merchant, Piers
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Squire, Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moore, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Murphy, Christopher
Sumberg, David


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Oppenheim, Philip
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, Sir John
Thurnham, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Parris, Matthew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Penhaligon, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Walden, George


Porter, Barry
Wallace, James


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Powley, John
Walters, Dennis


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Price, Sir David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Warren, Kenneth


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Watson, John


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Whitfield, John


Renton, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry





Wolfson, Mark
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Yeo, Tim



Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Godman, Dr Norman


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Gould, Bryan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bell, Stuart
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Benn, Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cowans, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Michie, William


Crowther, Stan
Mikardo, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dixon, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, M.


Faulds, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fisher, Mark
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Flannery, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, J. W.


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Foulkes, George
Ryman, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sheerman, Barry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.






Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Silkin, Rt Hon J,
Tinn, James


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Soley, Clive
Weetch, Ken


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael


Straw, Jack
White, James


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Wigley, Dafydd





Williams, Rt Hon A.



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. John McWilliam.


Young, David (Bolton SE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16 agreed to. — [Some with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

Clause 7

INDUSTRIAL ACTION AUTHORISED OR ENDORSED BY TRADE UNION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A BALLOT

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 7, leave out "reference to" and insert "the support of".

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 and 23.

Mr. Fatchett: This group of amendments, like those that we debated earlier, is further evidence of the confusion in the Government's legislation. In the eight months since Second Reading they have fundamentally changed the principles and the detail of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State—sadly, he is no longer with us—said that part II concerned strike ballots and effectively allowed trade unions the choice of balloting the members before calling them out and keeping the immunity allowed by the law or calling a strike without a ballot and forfeiting the immunity. He said that the choice was clear. If there was a ballot, regardless of the result, the union enjoyed the immunities. If there was no ballot, the union lost the privilege of the immunities. The Lords amendments which the Government now support fundamentally change that principle. There is now the third requirement that a majority must be obtained of those voting in the ballot, so the Government have substantially shifted their position.
One might suppose, charitably, that the change has been made because the Government listened to the arguments in Committee, but all the evidence points in the opposite direction. As the Secretary of State attended fewer than 20 per cent. of the Committee sittings, he probably never heard the arguments anyway. Indeed, he has disappeared again now that we have reached the important subject of strike ballots. He has presumably not disappeared at this time of night to carry out functions such as settling industrial disputes with which the Department is normally associated, but he has left other Ministers in the team to carry important matters of principle for the Government.
Replacing the absentee Secretary of State we have a moonlighting Minister of State—an individual capable of carrying out not just one but two jobs, including that of chairman of the Conservative party. The reason for the changes made in the Lords amendments may indeed be not the logic of the argument advanced to justify them but the Minister's recognition of the pressure from the militant wing of his own party. His hold on the chairmanship is extremely tenuous and it cannot make him feel very secure to see the newspapers regularly tipping others to take over the job. I believe that in supporting the amendments he is playing for the militant vote within the Conservative party which we saw in raw operation earlier.
The vote was not based on reason or any understanding of industrial relations—it was a raw, class vote. It was a body of opinion within the Conservative party — I suspect that the Minister of State, in his more rational moments, is ashamed of it—that was clearly anti-trade

union and anti working people. That body of opinion, stimulated by certain Conservative Members, and represented outside the House by the Institute of Directors, is the real policymaker in the Conservative party.
11.30 pm
The reality of the Department of Employment is that it is no longer making industrial relations policy; it has transferred those functions to its own extremist Back Benchers and, outside the House, to the Institute of Directors. Those are the people who are putting forward the amendments, and the Government are going along with it in an obedient Pavlovian way—they are not thinking about industrial relations; they are simply responding to the diktat of the extremists outside the House. Those are the reasons for this batch of amendments. The chairman of the Conservative party is giving way to the pressure in his own organisation.
The official reason for the amendments is that they are a reaction to the coal strike—lessons have been learnt from experience. Lord Gowrie, in the other place, put that forward as the official reason for the amendments. On many occasions tonight there has been a great deal of heat from Conservative Members about industrial disputes, but not on one occasion did they come forward with a suggestion of how to resolve certain industrial disputes. The figures for industrial disputes show that in the first six months of 1984, the number of working days lost went up by nearly 300 per cent. That shows that this Department of Employment, under these Ministers, gives a low priority to settling industrial disputes. The Government are keen to exacerbate and create industrial disputes. Such an attitude has been shown by Conservative Members this evening.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The difference is Scargill.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman says that the difference is Scargill. Is that a sensible way to make legislation? Do we now introduce legislation for each and every full-time union official? Will there be legislation to deal with Moss Evans? Will there be legislation to deal with Terry Duffy in the AUEW if there is legislation to deal with Arthur Scargill? In the amendments, there is not a clause that says that they are the Arthur Scargill amendments, but we take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that that is so. They are to deal with the miners' dispute and the problems that beset the Government as a result.
I believe that the heat that has been generated on the Conservative Benches and the reaction every time Arthur Scargill's name is mentioned simply show that the Government believe that the more they shout, the more they will appear to be in control. The reality of the miners' dispute is that the Government have lost control; they are on the way to defeat. They know it, and that is why they want to make a great deal of noise.
Let us look at the arguments. The Government say that if a union does not hold a strike ballot or does not carry that ballot with a majority, it will lose immunities. Those immunities exist partly under the Trade Disputes Act 1906. They have been severely restricted by the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982. Employers have the power to use the jurisdiction of the courts to show the limitations that have been placed on the immunities of trade unions. The amendment can work only if employers and Government are prepared to take trade unions to court under the 1980 and 1982 legislation.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how many working days were lost in the first six months of this year following strike ballots, and how many were lost when there were no strike ballots?

Mr. Fatchett: If, in view of his other responsibilities, the Minister has time, I am sure that he will be delighted to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman will want to know how these amendments will reduce the number of days that are lost through industrial action. It is possible under the 1980 and 1982 Acts to take trade unions to court, as their immunities have been restricted severely. Why have the courts not been used in the miners' dispute? There can be only two logical answers. Perhaps the Government have interfered and told employers and the nationalised industries informally, "Do not use the industrial relations legislation because we have created a bomb that will blow up if anyone dares use it." The Bill is therefore pinned on legislation that the Government dare not use. We know that. They have intervened day after day in the coal dispute. The other conclusion, which is more flattering to the Minister as he might not want to claim that he has interfered in his capacity as chairman of the Conservative party, is that employers have decided not to use the legislation.
Employers might be more sensible than we sometimes give them credit for. They might realise that the legislation that the Government have put through might not help but rather will make industrial relations more difficult to manage. Either conclusion shows that, in 1980 and 1982, the Government introduced legislation that was of little use in industrial relations except to poison and sour the atmosphere in workplaces throughout the country. Conservative Members know that. They want a Scargill clause so that they can go back to their Conservative associations and say, "We have put into this Bill an amendment that will stop what is happening in the coal dispute."
I put it to the Minister, what will these amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not listening."] He does not need to listen because he always gives the same reply. He might do us the courtesy of listening as he might want to tell us what in these amendments will help us to resolve the dispute in the coal industry. He has let the cat out of the bag, as he has said nothing in that regard. These amendments will do nothing to help resolve the coal dispute. Would it not be more sensible if, instead of wasting the Government's and the House's time, the Minister and his Department tried to resolve industrial disputes? That is the Department's traditional role. When the chairman of the Conservative party is a Minister and the Conservative party thinks that it will get political advantage from industrial unrest, there is no incentive for the Department of Employment to resolve industrial disputes. The Department should be negotiating a settlement, but we have a Government who are introducing futile and pointless amendments that will exacerbate the problem as they provide the raw meat for Conservative Members to say that they have their Scargill clause.
We shall oppose these amendments for several reasons. We believe that, in principle, the introduction of compulsory strike ballots is against the concept of voluntarism which has traditionally existed in British

industrial relations. Again, the Government are telling the unions what they have to do, rather than allowing the unions and their members to decide for themselves.
Time and again, we have heard from Conservative Members and from Ministers that the Bill is about giving the unions back to their members. Part II and the amendments take the unions away from the members and impose on them a form of operation which the Government insist on. We oppose the compulsion; we believe in voluntarism.
Our main reason for opposing the amendments is that they represent an ill-conceived reaction to the Government's forthcoming defeat in the coal strike. They are a Pavlovian reaction, built on class hatred rather than an understanding of industrial relations. The amendments are devoid of logical thought and analysis, but they are replete with class hatred and hostility.

Mr. David Penhaligon: This is the part of the Bill which worries me most. I fear that we shall not have strike ballots—which I favour—but ballots on whether members support the union in going back for another round of negotiations with the management. There is a reference to a 28-day gap between the holding of a ballot and the start of a strike.
The amendments merely make sense of the clause. One says that there must be a majority in favour of a strike. I confess that I assumed that that was what the original drafting meant. I applaud whoever spotted the defect in the other place. I did not hear it mentioned in Committee here.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Penhaligon: I was there—too often.
The other amendments merely make the position clearer and I see no reason why we should oppose that.
However, I am not convinced that the arguments that I made in Committee are invalid. Still I believe that the Government are making a mistake and are producing a scenario which will increase the likelihood of strikes. as opposed to reducing them which I suspect is their desire. If the Opposition had argued that case, instead of continually pointing out that the Minister of State is the chairman of the Conservative party—which most of us know by now—we might have made more progress on the points that deserve attention.
The Government have got it wrong, but at least the amendments ensure that the clause makes sense, and there is no reason to oppose them.

Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchelt) on his speech from the Opposition Front Bench and thank him for his solicitous approach to my chairmanship of the Conservative party. I hope that he will have many more years in which to continue being so solicitous.
I also thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for giving us a rare moment of unanimity when he mentioned that he had attended the Committee too often. However, he missed our argument on the point that he raised. We discussed whether we should write into the Bill a requirement for a majority in a ballot.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned the reason why the change has been made, but he passed over it quickly. We felt that there was no need to provide that there had to be a majority. We felt—I believe that I said it—that no trade union leader who failed to get a


majority would call people out on strike. Since then too many trade union leaders have done precisely that. A whole series of loyalist miners who support the NUM have continued their ban on overtime for which they voted, but have refused to go on strike because they voted against it. They will win the miners' strike. They are the real members of the NUM, not those who have been taken out on strike without the ballot which the NUM constitution requires. I am talking about Nottinghamshire, where the vote was 20,188 to 7,285 against a strike. The union then called the men out and they refused to strike.
11.45 pm
I have some more embarrassing figures for the Opposition. In the midlands the figure was 7,556 to 2,804. Again the union called the men out on strike. In south Derbyshire, 2,303 miners did not want to strike and 453 did want to strike. Every man was called out on strike by the union which held the ballot. In Cumberland and north Wales the figures were 383 to 109 and 595 to 276. In each case a ballot was held and the union, having lost the ballot, called the men out on strike and have since used intimidation and violence to try to overturn the decision of the ballot. That is what has changed.
I say to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that his party grew on the demand for democracy, that ordinary people should have a fair and decent way of life and be able to vote. He should be supporting the Nottinghamshire miners, the Derbyshire miners, the Staffordshire miners, the Cumberland miners and the miners of north Wales instead of the only miners who did not have a ballot and who were called out on strike without that ballot.

Mr. Fatchett: It is strange that we should have to listen to lessons in democracy by the Conservative party, given its record of resisting every extension of the franchise and democratic rights. Conservative Members know that and will continue to resist the demands of working people. The Minister loves to quote figures. How will the amendments resolve the strike? That is the crucial question. He can play with all his figures for the benefit of his Back Benchers. I understand his reason, but what will he do about resolving the strike and how will the amendments contribute to that?

Mr. Gummer: That intervention neither apologises for the gross misuse of democratic rights demonstrated by the figures that I used nor condemns the intimidation and violence against those who have honourably balloted. It did not admit that if this legislation had been in place before ordinary men and women would have had a proper way of ensuring that they had that ballot, because the union would not have put itself at risk by not having the ballot.
I hope that the House will recognise, and make sure that others recognise, that once again the Labour party has failed to condemn the violence and support the ballot, and it has failed to condemn the intimidation and support the votes. Once again, it has backed the miners who have not voted against the miners who have voted. That is the truth of its opposition to the amendments. In those circumstances, in a democratically elected assembly such as this House, it is sad that the hon. Member for Leeds,

Central should choose the first occasion on which he appeared on the Front Bench not to condemn violence and support the ballot.
This matter does not only concern the NUM. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman about the effects of the past three weeks on the port of Felixstowe, in my constituency. There dockers were brought out on strike without a ballot. However, they were asked to vote to go back after the strike.

Mr. Blair: It is not true.

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman said that it is not true, I shall report to him the words of the convener at the meeting. I have his words because most of the people at the meeting were the dockers at Felixstowe who vote for me. In the last general election campaign the Labour candidate was not asked to speak to the dockers because they said that the Labour party policy on docks was not one that they could support in any circumstances. I was invited to talk to the dockers and they pointed out the one member of the Labour party that they could find. The dockers in Felixstowe were told what the union had decided and that they could not vote on it because it was a matter of accepting what the union had decided. That was a decision on a strike that was connected with the dock labour scheme, which does not apply to the port of Felixstowe. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the dockers should have had a vote.
There was then the vote before the strike at Dover. In that case, the vote was so disputed that everybody but the shop stewards thought that the result was two to one against the strike, and it was declared a vote for the strike.

Mr. Blair: rose——

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way.
Only recently, there was a decision by the TGWU to expel a group of 21 drivers in Wales—who were not asked whether they wanted to go on strike, but were told to do so—because the union decided that they should have accepted the demand that they strike rather than cross a picket line. Despite the hilarity of Labour Members, they cannot overcome the serious change that has taken place since we debated this matter in Committee. Despite the fact that in Committee we believed that if one had a vote the trade union leaders would accept that if they could not get a majority for a strike they would not call a strike, there are now a whole series of cases in which, when such leaders fail to get a majority, they have brought people out on strike and then used violence and intimidation to keep them out on strike. Labour Members show themselves to be dishonourable in refusing to condemn intimidation and support the ballot.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 150.

Division No. 429]
[11.54 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Batiste, Spencer


Ashdown, Paddy
Beith, A. J.






Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Benyon, William
Gow, Ian


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Best, Keith
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Body, Richard
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brinton, Tim
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Harvey, Robert


Browne, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, J.


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hirst, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Crouch, David
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Johnston, Russell


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Eggar, Tim
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Evennett, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Key, Robert


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Farr, Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knowles, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Knox, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Franks, Cecil
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim


Gale, Roger
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lightbown, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lilley, Peter


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lord, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Lyell, Nicholas





McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ryder, Richard


MacGregor, John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Maclean, David John
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Madel, David
Shelton, Wiiliam (Streatham)


Major, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malone, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Silvester, Fred


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Merchant, Piers
Spencer, Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moore, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sumberg, David


Mudd, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Norris, Steven
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Philip
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trippier, David


Osborn, Sir John
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Penhaligon, David
Wallace, James


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watts, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodcock, Michael


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Rowe, Andrew





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)






Barnett, Guy
John, Brynmor


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bell, Stuart
Lambie, David


Benn, Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lester, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Litherland, Robert


Blair, Anthony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Caborn, Richard
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Canavan, Dennis
McTaggart, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cohen, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Michie, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Crowther, Stan
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Park, George


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, M.


Dubs, Alfred
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eadie, Alex
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eastham, Ken
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rogers, Allan


Ewing, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Fatchett, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Faulds, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fisher, Mark
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Flannery, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foulkes, George
Snape, Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Soley, Clive


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Straw, Jack


George, Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Golding, John
Tinn, James


Gould, Bryan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Wareing, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wigley, Dafydd


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Woodall, Alec


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hoyle, Douglas



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.


Janner, Hon Greville

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lord amendments Nos. 18 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 10

BALLOTS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 27 in page 13, line 9, at beginning insert
In section 4(1) of the 1913 Act (ballots to be in accordance with rules approved by the Certification Officer) for the words from 'every member' to the end there shall be substituted 'the requirements of subsections (1A) to (1F) below would be satisfied in relation to a ballot taken by the union in accordance with those rules.
(1A) After subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1913 Act there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(1A) Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all members of the trade union.
(1B) The method of voting must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting.
(1C) Every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

(a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and
(b) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.
(1D) So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

(a) have made available to him—

(i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and
(ii) at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him; or be supplied with, a voting paper; and
(b) be given—

(i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);
(ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity): or
(iii) as altematives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunities).
(1E) The ballot must be conducted so as to secure that—

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, those voting do so in secret; and
(b) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted (any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragragh if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot).
(1F) In this section—
post" means a postal service which—

(a) is provided by the Post Office or under a licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or
(b) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act; and
working hours", in relation to an employee, means any time when, in accordance with his contract of employment, he is required to be at work."—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Read a Second time.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 4, leave out '(1F)' and add '(1H)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to the proposed Lords amendment.

Lords amendment No. 28.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: We thought that it would be inconsistent to move the provision for personal ballots for the election of the national executive committees of trade unions without having a similar provision for postals ballots


on whether trade union political funds should exist. All the criticisms that were made in the earlier debate about workplace ballots for places on the national executive committees apply equally to ballots on the provision of political funds. The amendments have been tabled to be consistent on the two proposals contained in the Bill.
Included in this group of amendments is the proposal to which the Secretary of State referred earlier in connection with the phrase "reasonably practicable". As the Minister knows, this matter was debated at some length in the other place and in Committee. A number of other phrases that could have been used have been suggested by the noble Lords and by hon. Members. I should like the Minister to explain to the House why the term "reasonably practicable" has been chosen, rather than some of the other terms suggested in debates in the other place and in Committee.
The basic principles involved were discussed in the debate on the first group of amendments. However, the House will see that there is an overwhelming case for having postal ballots. Given that the other place inserted that provision in the Bill more adequately than was originally intended, we believe that it should go further so that we have the same provisions as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) proposed for executives.
I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to this suggestion, and I look forward to his explanation in support of the Government's decisions before I decide whether to press these amendments to a Division.

Mr. Blair: We now come to part III, dealing with political funds and objects. In a pernicious and partisan Bill, this is surely the most pernicious and partisan part. The first two parts provided a demonstration of the Conservative party's simple prejudice against the trade union movement. No better evidence has been provided than by the Secretary of State for Employment, who, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) to give one example of trade union malpractice in trade union elections, told the House—apparently seriously — that as people who committed these defaults were very good at covering them up, he could give no evidence of any such malpractice. It was a speech which would have done credit to the brief of a member of the department of the Soviet director of public prosecutions.
However, in part III, added to the simple prejudice against the trade union movement is a measure of party advantage. This part of the Bill is a disgrace and should be an embarrassment to any sensible, objective Government. Such embarrassment has not deterred this Government, as their ability to withstand the ordinary pressures of propriety is practically infinite, yet it has caused them embarrassment. The best proof of that is the absence from the Chamber of the most notable absentee from the Committee when we discussed part III—the Minister of State Department of Employment.
The hon. Gentleman is also chairman of the Conservative party, elected on a ballot of one and a 100 per cent. turnout — we clp not know whether it was workplace or branch—and whose embarrassment over this part of the Bill rightly and properly caused his absence from any consideration on it. That embarrassment has been caused because this part of the Bill represents the first attempt since 1927 — apart from that the first attempt

ever—by one political party to pass legislation whose purpose is directly to limit and staunch the funds to a political party of opposite views — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is not rubbish.
Indeed, I pray in aid the words spoken when my hon. Friend who now represents Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) introduced the Companies (Regulation of Political Funds) Bill to place restrictions on company donations to the Conservative party. He was opposed by no less an alumnus than the present Secretary of State for Transport, who said:
There has been a balance in the sense that, since the war, Labour Governments have done two things. One was a return to a position of contracting out for the unions and the other was to make companies publish in their accounts the amounts given to political parties. So, for two moves aimed, as it were, to the advantage of the Labour Party, I am proud that there has been no move by Conservative Governments in the opposite direction —in some way seeking to get their own back—by restricting trade union funds made available to the Labour Party".
Later the right hon. Gentleman said:
Over the years, over the battlefield of industrial dispute in these matters, a balance has been worked out which may not be entirely fair one way or the other, but it is a kind of rough justice solution. It would be as wrong for the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his Bill as it would be for the Conservative party to seek to limit the ability of the Labour party to raise funds from the trade unions and to upset that balance."—[Official Report, 20 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 218–211.]
That is what the Secretary of State for Transport said in 1978. What has changed since then—other than that the Government, with their majority, care less about justice, rough or otherwise, than they did then?
The reason for the embarrassment is not only that it is a deliberate attempt to injure the Opposition in their funding. It is blatant one-sidedness. Not one valid reason has been offered for the restriction on political funds and the ability of trade unions to give political funds to political parties which should not apply equally to companies and corporations.

Mr. Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. It gives me the opportunity to put to him the question which I put to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who is not here tonight—on three occasions. By what arrogance does the hon. Gentleman suppose that this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party Of funds? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), in a debate long past, will recall that we discussed the possibility that trade union members might wish to contribute to a political party other than the Labour party. I have now put my question four times. I shall put it a fifth time. Why does the Labour party assume, with such arrogance, and in view of the large number of trade union members who did not support the Labour party at the last election, that they would wish to contribute only to Labour party funds and that, therefore, this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party of funds?

Mr. Blair: I simply pose this question to the hon. Gentleman and anyone who doubts the truth of what I have been saying. Let us suppose that the trade union movement had been giving massive amounts of money to the Conservative party, or that it had supported the Conservative party. Does anyone think that this legislation would have seen the light of day? It is an affront to our common sense and common reason.
It is worth remembering that trade unions, for a long time at the end of the last century and until the Osborne


case in 1908, had no restrictions on what they did with their money. They operated in exactly the same way as unincorporated and incorporated associations. It was only because of the 1908 case that restrictions were placed on the way in which trade unions handled their funds. That decision was very much criticised at the time and was sought to be reversed in the Trade Union Act 1913.
The vital point about the 1913 Act is that it was a compromise between Osborne's case and a return to the pre-Osborne days—the days when trade unions were treated in the same way as any other unincorporated or incorporated association. The argument during the passage of that measure was not about whether greater restrictions should be placed on trade unions but whether any restrictions at all should be placed on them.
I remind the alliance that at that time the liberal party spokesmen were amongst those who were strongest in favour of returning to the pre-Osborne days and freeing the trade unions from restrictions altogether.
The only reason that has been advanced for the difference between companies and trade unions is that a shareholder may sell his shares and leave the company. Therefore, it is said, the shareholder is able to put himself out of a company which has contributed to a political party which he does not support. Surely that is answered by the simple point that the shareholder has only the drastic option of selling his shares and leaving the company altogether, but a trade unionist can opt out of paying the political levy and still retain all the benefits of the trade union. The only point that is made to show that restrictions can also apply to companies on analysis supports my case.

Mr. Penhaligon: I would happily support an arrangement whereby the ballot as a necessity was abolished but everybody opted in. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?

Mr. Blair: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment. This part of the Bill imposes such restrictions. There must be parity of treatment. When the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) talks about wanting the money, I recall not so long ago that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly willing to take the money of the trade union movement. We shall look for something based a little more on principle than simply a change of party allegiance to justify his switch of vote on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to reply, but we are dealing with the conduct of the ballot.

Mr. Golding: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is related to the amendment.

Mr. Golding: When I sent the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) a cheque from the political fund of the POU he thanked me for it, with no reservations at all.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is an hon. Member allowed to make inaccurate and untrue statements in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member is responsible for the statements he makes in the House. We should return to the amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I heard the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) refer to my hon. Friend the member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) as a liar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen do not need the Chair to tell them that if such a statement is made it should be withdrawn, but I did not hear it.

Mr. Blair: It is only a trade union which must have a separate political fund, which must apply that fund in respect of specified political objects, which must permit those who wish not to abide by the resolution of that trade union to have a political fund to opt out, and which is circumscribed by special rules in the litigation of grievances under that political fund. Only a trade union is treated in that way. Other unincorporated institutions such as a women's institute can give as much money as they like without restriction. The Bill represents a further tightening of the screw in that matter.
To avoid the charge of engaging in a piece of deliberately political legislation, the Government have sought to argue—I am sure that they will not maintain it—that part III merely updates the Trade Union Act 1913. That is the Government in their role as modernisers of antiquated legislation. It was never a convincing role. It is plain that the 1913 Act dealt with the issue of further ballots on trade union funds and, therefore, there was no reason to have periodic ballots. It is clear that the political objects of the Bill will be much enlarged to strike at political parties and sources of opposition to the Government within the trade union movement. It is the amendment which gives the final lie to any lingering illusions about the intentions of part III.
Under the 1913 Act there is adequate provision for the certification officer to ensure that a political ballot on the political fund is conducted in a fair manner. He must be satisfied of that before he can allow the ballot to go ahead. There is no reason to think that there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the ballot procedures have worked. Only two complaints have been made about breaches of ballot rules. That being so, what reason can there be for the new balloting procedure?
Two consequences flow from the new procedure. Instead of the certification officer having a general discretion on the method of balloting for the political fund, there will be the strict method that is set out in the Government's proposed procedures. Under the new procedures, any counting inaccuracy is to be disregarded except in so far as it affects the result. But any other inaccuracy of however small an amount could upset the entire political fund. That is the importance of the amendment. Any act of negligence on the part of a branch official in giving out the ballot papers could invalidate the political fund.
The second consequence, which is linked to the first, is that the challenge to the political fund could be made at any time. A ballot could take place after the enactment of the Bill, and in the run-up to a general election an application could be made to the courts alleging failure to adhere to the ballot rules. In the midst of an election the certification officer could be dragged into the dispute to decide whether the money given by a trade union to the Labour party, for example, pursuant to the resolution of a political fund, could be set aside.
There is only one amendment that is more extreme than that which has come from the other place, and that is the responsibility of the alliance. The Government have had the sense to realise that the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
have to be introduced in some way to the communication of the ballot paper, but the alliance has sought to withdraw them. If the alliance's amendment were to be accepted, the duty placed on the political fund would be absolute. If anyone is in any doubt about the attitude of the alliance towards the trade union movement, he should consider its amendment carefully.
The amendment is a recipe for mischievous litigation. Anyone who doubts that should pay careful regard to the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at (a meeting which is a monument to democracy) the Conservative party conference. In encouraging people to take action against the trade unions in relation to the political fund, he said:
All that you have to do is to give the money that will enable them to do it.
That is what the Secretary of State wishes to force on the trade union movement.
If Conservative Members think that now that they have broken the compromise that was arrived at with the 1913 Act the issue of political funding is no longer on the agenda, or can be concluded by the Bill, they are much mistaken. In seeking to end the compromise, they are reopening the whole issue of political funding. The political funding of their party by companies is something to which the next Labour Government will turn their attention. This is a partisan and prejudicial measure. It is a disgrace for the House to debate legislation that is plainly designed to inhibit the effectiveness of another political party. The House should reject the measure conclusively.

Mr. Golding: The Post Office Engineering Union has had a political fund since the early 1960s, not because its members wanted to affiliate with the Labour party but because they clearly believed that it was in their interests to secure a voice in Parliament and representation in Parliament. Why did they want that? They saw that many interests opposed to their interests were represented in the House of Commons.
Recently, much has been made of the way in which those Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill all represented commercial interests.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? That is incorrect. I am one Member who has no commercial interest whatsoever.

Mr. Penhaligon: What is wrong with the hon. Gentleman? Everyone else did.

Mr. Gale: I was offered it, but I turned it down.

Mr. Golding: I think that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has made the point. Certainly, the majority of Conservative Members who served on that Committee were representing commercial or other interests. I am one of those Opposition Members who have said, "I do not think that the representation of interests is necessarily bad."
If manufacturers are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, so too, are workpeople. If merchants are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, influencing Ministers

and speaking for the merchant class, so too are craftsmen. It is apparent that not only has the direct representation of interests grown on the Tory Benches in recent years, but Conservative Members have been making substantial sums from running consultancy services providing a wide range of parliamentary facilities to outside commercial interests. That fact is well-documented.
If Conservative Members can, for money, provide a voice in Parliament for private industrial concerns, why cannot workpeople be so represented? That is an issue. To workpeople, Parliament can be important not only in the obvious subjects, such as health and safety and basic trade union legislation, but in the settlement of certain aspects such as pensions, pay and pay policy. The standard of living of workers is determined as much by what happens in Parliament as by negotiations between trade union officials and employers. In so far as the trade union movement is concerned with the protection of and improvement in the conditions of work for working people, there is no way in which trade unions can secure their objectives just through industrial bargaining between employers and trade union officials. To protect themselves they must ensure that their interests are represented in Parliament. It will be a sad day for trade unions if they lose the representation in Parliament that they have had during this century, at least.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: No one would deny trade unionists the right to have representation in the House if they so wish. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the members of that trade union should be given the choice in a ballot as to whether they wish it?

Mr. Golding: Trade unions cannot have a political fund unless there has been a ballot. The Government are saying that there must be regular ballots in the trade unions.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Why not?

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says "Why not?" Perhaps the same argument should apply to industrial companies, and the same principles should apply to the institutions to which Conservative Members belong. Conservative Members have one rule for themselves and another for our institutions. They intend to apply different special rules because we represent working people. That we resent deeply.
If this amendment becomes part of the legislation, Opposition Members will have an obligation strongly to argue the case for parliamentary representation for trade unions.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As no one party appears to remain in power indefinitely, is not the argument that the hon. Gentleman is advancing one in support of unions such as the National Union of Teachers which supports members in several political parties?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why the Labour party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully and trying to relate what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying to the particular amendment. We are now becoming wide of the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will bring us back.

Mr. Golding: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the difficulty with a debate like this is that


the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who should be on the Conservative Benches, asked "Why the Labour party?" The Conservative and Liberal parties decided in the 19th century that they did not want to be contaminated by working-class methods. Hon. Members below the Gangway and Conservative Members decided that there should be no organised trades union involvement in their parties. That is true today.

Mr. Best: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if it were not for the Conservative party and Benjamin Disraeli in 1875 there would be no trade unions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That shows how the House can go astray when we get away from the particular amendments. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme must bring us back to the amendment.

Mr. Golding: My Front Bench will want me to close as quickly as possible, but I make no apology, because for almost 20 years I have been in charge of the administration of a union political fund. I strongly believe that that fund has done—with some exceptions—a useful job.
There is one reason why one must all the time put a question mark against relying solely on postal ballots. We are not elected to this House by postal ballot. Electors must attend a polling station to cast their votes. One thing that is missing from an entirely postal balloting procedure is debate. Democracy is as much about debate as about voting and trade unionism is as much about discussion of the issue as about the final casting of votes. It is important that the case should be made and argued within the union before the vote is taken. I have no doubt that if that is done members of the trade unions will choose to keep their political funds so as to keep their parliamentary representation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The amendments alter the Trade Union Act 1913 to bring the arrangements for political fund ballots laid down in section 4(1) of that Act into line with clauses 3 and 11 of parts I and II of the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box, to which I attribute the rather excitable and fairly orthodox Second Reading speech that he dealt out and his tendency to avoid the detail of the amendment. I have no desire to raise the temperature of the House, so I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman very far in his assertion that the proposals constitute an attack on trade union funds. I merely remind him, as he has been reminded so many times in the 160 hours or so of debate on the Bill, that if union members wish to contribute to political funds the Labour party has nothing to fear. If union members do not wish to contribute to political funds, I am sure that Labour Members would not wish their party to be supported by contributions that are not voluntarily subscribed.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark: No, I shall not give way. I have made the point so many times that I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, even in the somewhat excitable and enthusiastic atmosphere of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, should have overlooked the frequency with which that curious anomaly had been pointed out to him.
The simple object of the Lords amendments was to ensure that ballots held under the 1913 Act could not slip below the minimum standards that Parliament has deemed it right to set for trade union ballots in the Bill. I am surprised that Labour Members quarrel with that as they recognise that the 1913 Act provides for union members to be given an equal right and a fair opportunity to vote as well as providing for secrecy to be properly secured. It says nothing explicit about the conveninece of voting arrangements. Crucially, therefore, it does not preclude the possibility of political fund ballots being held at branch meetings away from the workplace.

Mr. Sheerman: Who wrote this?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has played a significantly low-key role in the debates on the Bill. He is occasionally wheeled out to shadow the renewal of orders, but otherwise his profile in employment matters has been minimal. Nevertheless, I would claim that the text that I am reading, to the extent that I am reading at all, relates to the amendments rather than to the rather wide and excitable Second Reading context of most of the other contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the test of practicability, and to whether it was appropriate in this context. I have a note for him that will, at this 11th hour—indeed, well past it —elucidate the problem that he raised.
The test of reasonable practicability is necessary to cater for things that may go wrong in a postal ballot but which are clearly beyond the union's control. In a ballot of several hundred thousand union members there will inevitably be cases where a voting paper simply cannot be got to a member, or cannot be got to him in time. It may be that there is a postal delay, the member is away or there is some other mishap. It is not the Government's intention that the union should be liable in such circumstances, but the test of reasonable practicability will not remove liability from the union in any circumstances where failure to meet the test in the Bill results from failure within the union.

Mr. Blair: As the Minister wishes to be textual, perhaps I can be textual with him for a moment. If he says that the Government's intention is that any error in a union ballot paper will make the union liable, does he mean by "liable" that the political fund resolution is null and void? I assume that that is what he means by "liable". That is the only sanction. Am I right in thinking that if any mistake is made deliberately, by negligence or inadvertence by the union in dealing out the ballot papers, unless that mistake is referable simply to inaccuracy in counting, it will render the political fund resolution as being of no effect?

Mr. Clark: Where an error was deliberate, it would have that effect, but where it was inadvertent or accidental, it would not.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: My particular interest in questioning the term "reasonably practicable" was that I wondered why the Government were relying upon the use of both those words. Alternatives might have been "practicable measures" or "with reasonable care", but to rely upon both reasonableness and practicability seems to be laying it on rather heavily. I know that that has been discussed elsewhere.

Mr. Clark: That may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I am afraid that he will have to be content with the wording as it stands.
It would be a distortion of democracy if decisions on the future of political funds were taken on 2 per cent. turnouts at branch ballots. We would be failing in our duty were we to ignore the statements of leaders of unions such as ASTMS that they will win political fund ballots because only the activists will bother to vote.
There is absolutely no reason why unions should not operate political funds, but not on the say-so of a tiny minority of so-called activists. The Government's position is perfectly respectable, midway between the laissez faire of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the extreme posture of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am confident that the Government's position will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 155.

Division No. 430]
[12.49 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Benyon, William
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Sir Anthony
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowden, A: (Brighton K'to'n)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Farr, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Favell, Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Browne, John
Fletcher, Alexander


Bruinvels, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nick
Forth, Eric


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burt, Alistair
Franks, Cecil


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Butler, Hon Adam
Freeman, Roger





Fry, Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Maclean, David John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, John


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Antony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mates, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Harris, David
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harvey, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moate, Roger


Hayes, J.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hirst, Michael
Norris, Steven


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Cranley


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Oppenheim, Philip


Holt, Richard
Osborn, Sir John


Hordern, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Powley, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Raffan, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael






Silvester, Fred
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Trippier, David



Trotter, Neville





NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barnett, Guy
Ewing, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Foulkes, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Boyes, Roland
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Robert
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Hon Greville


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Russell


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Edward


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William





Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rost, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Robert
Ryman, John


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Michie, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Nellist, David
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Park, George
Wallace, James


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert


Pavitt, Laurie
Welsh, Michael


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Redmond, M.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)



Richardson, Ms Jo
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 15

POLITICAL OBJECTS

Lords amendment: No 36, in page 18, line 5, leave out
at which business of a political party is transacted
and insert
the main purpose of which is the transaction of business in connection with a political party

1 am

Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 37, amendment (a), and consequential amendment No. (1).

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whom I congratulate on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, said that part III was the major part of the Bill. He is correct: Clause 15 is the centrepiece of the Governments legislation. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-underLyne (Mr. Golding) said about what is involved.
The arguments involved in Lords amendment No 36 were dismissed by Ministers. It is meant to be helpful, but it is vague and could be troublesome. The problem is caused by the words in front of the proposed new words which state:
on the holding of any conference or meeting by or on behalf of a political party".
The words could cause problems.
For instance, I raised the case of a delegation of workers from the steel industry, miners, agricultural workers or, in the case that I presented at some length in Committee, sugar workers, who attend a party conference to lobby delegates, or even Ministers. It is obvious that the business


in which they are participating is in connection with a political party. It would have been better to use a phrase such as "on behalf of a political party", to clear up the doubt. I should be grateful if the Minister will clear up this point.
There is another, similar, point. For instance, there may be meetings of public sector union workers, such as the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union, with which the Under-Secretary had one or two problems in Committee, or the National Union of Public Employees, or the National and Local Government Officers Association, or anybody else who works in the public sector, to discuss the abolition of the county councils or the Government's rate capping legislation, or any such subject that is of major concern to them Undoubtedly the words:
in connection with a political party
could be construed as the purpose of that meeting. Would the expenditure of that meeting be held to be of a political nature and therefore have to come out of a union's fund? At present, whenever a union holds or organises a meeting the purpose of which is to protect the jobs of workers in that sector, or to look to their pay and conditions, it comes from the general fund.
I ask this because of the rather loose wording of this part of the Bill. Would not the union be charged from its political fund in this case? The problem with the case that I have outlined is that some of the unions in the public sector do not have political funds. If they do not have such funds, presumably they could not hold the meetings, and therefore would be denied the right to protect or promote the interests of their members.
I assume that Lords amendment No. 37 seeks to be helpful. As the Minister is aware, in committee we pressed the strongest part of our argument on this part of the Bill. As clause 15(f) was originally worded, it was of a nature that would have caused a gold mine for solicitors and barristers arguing the case as to what this subsection meant. Now, some important words have been removed. I shall read them because they are important. They say:
which, taken as a whole (any one forming part of a collection or series being considered on its own) seeks to persuade any person to vote or, as the case may be".
There were many hours of debate on this point about the "collection or series", which could take place over a 12-month period. The last one of these could be held to be of a political nature, and therefore, everything that had gone before that would be caught by the Bill and would have to be charged to the union's political funds.
The Government have removed those words, and we welcome that, but the clause is still vague, because what has been substituted are the words:
the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate".
It goes on to add the remaining words in clause 15(f):
or … not to vote for a political party or candidate.
A great deal of vagueness remains, and there is the probability of troubles in the future, in the interpretation of the phrase:
not to vote for a political party or candidate".
We all know the meaning of the terms, which anybody could put forward in an election campaign, "Don't vote Labour" or "Keep the Socialist out".
They are quite clear, and we understand them. But what about slogans such as "Vote No to Nationalisation", or "Hands off the Building Industry"? Such slogans have

been used in general election campaigns but not by trade unions. Opponents of the Labour party have spent vast sums on such campaigns.
We had a long debate on the campaign of the National and Local Government Officers Association, "Put People First". The Government were determined to frame the legislation to ensure that such campaigns were caught by it. The Minister shakes his head, but in Committee he admitted that the NALGO campaign would be caught by it.

Mr. David Lightbown: So it should be.

Mr. Evans: That is not the point. I want to know whether a NALGO-type campaign would be caught by the new terms of the Bill. It is essential that trade unions should be informed at this thirteenth hour of what is in the Bill. It is not good enough to leave the issue to litigation, so that people have to go to court to ascertain what is meant. I put it as strongly as possible that the NALGO campaign was a perfectly legitimate and proper campaign for a trade union to carry out in seeking to defend its members, their jobs, conditions of employment and quality of life.
If NALGO had been caught by this Bill in 1983, it would have been unable to mount its campaign, because it does not have a political fund. One of the largest trade unions in the country would have been unable to defend its members. If that is the purpose of this legislation, the Government should say so tonight. The trade unions in that category can then take the necessary steps to defend their members. I hope that the Minister will answer that point, and say definitely whether a NALGO-type campaign will be caught by the Bill.
It is an absolute disgrace that multi-national oil companies and foreign organisations will be able to spend as much money as they want attacking the Labour party and its plans and proposals without anyone intervening while restraints are being placed on trade unions that seek only to defend their members against attacks by the Government. The Under-Secretary will recall the massive Campaign Against Building Industry Nationalisation which must have cost several million pounds, and which was run during a recent general election by firms in the building industry. All of that money was legitimate and could not even be charged to the Tory party, yet the campaign was aimed directly at the Labour party. Such campaigns will not be affected. The Government have not taken any steps towards introducing some equity into the situation. It is the naked class politics that have been referred to so often during the Bill's passage —[Interruption.] Even Ministers are not very loud in their condemnation, because they know that that is true. The Bill involves naked class politics.
It would seem that any trade union that in any way criticises any aspect of Government policy—whether it is privatisation, rate-capping, public expenditure cuts, the abolition of local authorities—

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Cruise.

Mr. Evans: I was not referring to cruise. The Government are doing great damage to the public sector and are removing many jobs. Apparently whenever criticism is offered of this Government or their policies, that is regarded by the Government as political., so it


should be charged to the political fund. That is the one-sided approach of the Government: if any approach is unacceptable it should be denigrated and ended by whatever means possible.
1.15 am
Amendment (a) is even-handed and clears the position easily. It makes the terms of clause 15 crystal clear. There would be no need for further argument, and all unions would know exactly where they stand with regard to expenditure from their political funds. It would remove the negative expression of not to vote, whatever that means; I suspect that it will be argued many times in court what the term, "not to vote for a candidate or a political party", means. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State, even at this late hour, will give the amendment a fair hearing and will recognise the fairness of the proposition that I am putting to the Government, which would remove the present doubt with a positive statement, which would read that it would be action taken on the publication or distribution of any literature, documents or films, sound recording or advertisement, the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate. That is very easily understood, and there would be no recourse to litigation. It is the duty of the House to attempt at all times to make its legislation clear.
The purpose of the political fund would be to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate. Of course, that would be the Labour party. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State can reply to the debate and answer the important questions that I have asked and then inform the House that he is quite happy to accept my amendment and the consequential amendment that would be necessary to make sense of the Bill.

Mr. Alan Clark: Both these amendments were moved in response to Opposition concerns expressed in Committee. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) still displays such ingratitude. Amendment No. 36 deals with what appears to be a perfectly reasonable point: that meetings for purposes primarily to deal with union business, but where party political matters make up a minor part of the agenda, should not be caught. My noble Friend the Earl Gowrie agreed that it would be unreasonable for such meetings to be financed out of political funds. This amendment makes it clear that only meetings which are held primarily to transact party political business need be paid for from political funds.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North raised the question of lobbyists. The answer is that their expenses can be paid out of the general fund. Unless the meeting that they attend is primarily to transact party political business and unless they take part in the meeting itself, they can be paid for out of general funds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has had his turn at the Dispatch Box. It was singularly tasteless, out of key and a great disappointment of those of us who thought that he had made a number of constructive contributions in Committee that he should have felt the obligation to refer five times in 15 minutes to class hatred. That obligation is a matter that only he can decide. Perhaps on the second occasion at the Dispatch Box, he will make a more rational and reasoned contribution.
By the sub-amendment and the consequential amendment, the Opposition continue to say — and the hon. Member for St. Helens, North has been perfectly frank about this—that communications which encourage people not to vote for a political party should not have to be financed from political funds. As do all his hon. Friends, he continues to harp on the celebrated NALGO campaign, and to assert the canard that the entire NALGO campaign was unlawful, and it could not be financed out of a general fund. The answer to that, which he has been given in the past on many occasions, is that the campaign as such was perfectly lawful, and it could be paid for out of the general fund. Certain advertisements in it were in contravention even of the 1913 provisions, and would have to be paid for out of the political fund now.
The intention of NALGO in this instance is relevant. It sent me a report that it commissioned on this campaign. First, it made a statement, in discussing the campaign, for the effect that its
sole purpose was to influence public opinion, and that a general election was an ideal time to do that. … the advertising was re-programmed to be completed before election day.
That raises a clear presumption that the intention was to influence how people voted. As to the effect of the campaign, it said:
What was unmeasurable … was whether NALGO's contribution to the political debate at that time had some influence in spite of the big shift in the public's apparent concern about the quality of the public services. In other words, without NALGO's contribution the political swing might have been even bigger.
In the light of such comments, it is not possible that there could be any further question about the main purpose of these advertisements. However, a campaign that is generally devoted to a general alteration of conditions and issues can be paid for out of the general fund. There is a clear distinction between the component parts of the NALGO campaign — in particular, the advertisements with which the House is familiar, with the facsimile ballot paper in the corner, and so on—and the general theme of the campaign which would be paid for out of the general fund.
I emphasise that it is no more than common sense that communications which encourage people not to vote for a political party are no less party political than those which encourage people to vote for a political party. I ask the House to reject the amendment to the Lords amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 18, line 9, leave out from "advertisement" to "not" in line 12 and insert
the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate or to persuade them"—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed, in line 3, leave out 'or to persuade them'.—[Mr. Evans.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 300.

Division No. 431]
[1.25 am


AYES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Anthony


Barron, Kevin
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Boyes, Roland


Bell, Stuart
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Benn, Tony
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)






Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Thomas
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McNamara, Kevin


Cohen, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Marek, Dr John


Conlan, Bernard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, William


Cowans, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Craigen, J. M.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Crowther, Stan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Park, George


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Dormand, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie


Dubs, Alfred
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Redmond, M.


Ewing, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Faulds, Andrew
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ryman, John


Foster, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Foulkes, George
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Godman, Dr Norman
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Soley, Clive


Gould, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Tinn, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wareing, Robert


Hoyle, Douglas
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Winnick, David


Janner, Hon Greville
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Don Dixon.


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beith, A. J.


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, William


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Best, Keith


Aspinwall, Jack
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Browne, John
Hayes, J.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hickmet, Richard


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hill, James


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hirst, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Cockeram, Eric
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Johnston, Russell


Corrie, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, Sir John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Franks, Cecil
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Malone, Gerald


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry
Marlow, Antony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony






Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Rathbone, Tim


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Renton, Tim


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Rhodes James, Robert


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mudd, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Murphy, Christopher
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Nelson, Anthony
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter


Newton, Tony
Rowe, Andrew


Nicholls, Patrick
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Norris, Steven
Ryder, Richard


Onslow, Cranley
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Oppenheim, Philip
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Parris, Matthew
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael


Pawsey, James
Silvester, Fred


Penhaligon, David
Sims, Roger


Pollock, Alexander
Skeet, T. H. H.


Powell, William (Corby)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Powley, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Speed, Keith


Raffan, Keith
Speller, Tony


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Spencer, Derek





Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wallace, James


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Michael


Tracey, Richard
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Trippier, David
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Younger, Rt Hon George


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Waddington, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 45 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Merrivale and Brooksby Schools, Nottingham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Having waited patiently for some five or six weeks, I am grateful, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity to bring this subject before the House. I can only apologise for that, but I hope that the matter will commend itself to the House and to the Secretary of State for action at some time in the not too distant future.
For the proper protection of the rights of parents and local interests our Education Acts provide that notices are issued where authorities are proposing to close existing schools. The Education Act 1980 brought in notices to cover nursery provision. Those notices cover not only closure but change of status, character and the establishment of new schools. Their purpose was to give as much information as possible to people likely to be affected by them so that if they wished to do so they could make objection.
It was expected, foolishly, as I shall explain and illustrate later, that any proposals under notices would have been discussed with the staff, the parents and governors before a decision was arrived at and then, if it were decided so to do, to issue notices. It was expected that when the Secretary of State made a decision on notices he would have the power to approve or reject them, and limited powers to modify. If there were objections, the Secretary of State became, or should have become, the final arbiter and his decision was binding, save that it was possible for alternative proposals to be submitted.
That is a brief but, I hope, correct statement of the background to the incidents affecting two schools in my constituency, Merrivale nursery and Brooksby primary, which illustrates the abuse of the procedures that can arise. If the abuse is left unchecked, it will allow somewhat arrogant authorities to drive a coach and horses through the democratic processes and procedures that I have described.
There has been a vicious and unwarranted attack upon the parents who send their children to Merrivale nursery school because of the known quality of its education. By the avoidance of notice procedures, the parents who send their children to the Brooksby primary school cannot respond to the council's case.
Merrivale nursery school is about to be the subject of a third closure notice in less than three years. One of the Labour county councillors has said, "The governors were consulted on the first occasion. If they are consulted again they will only give the same answer." On that occasion the Labour chairman of governors gave a casting vote under his group's instruction and expressed to me his great unhappiness at having to do so. Councillor Heppall, another Labour councillor, made what I consider to be an outrageous statement. He said that, nursery places should be provided in areas of social need, not in areas where Conservative votes are.
Councillor Riddell, the chairman of the county education authority, the most arrogant chairman of education that I have ever had the mischance to meet, has

suggested that Merrivale is a centre of excellence and a maverick institution that should have been closed long ago. He added:
Conservative councillors are obviously fighting for their section of the electorate in opposing this closure … it is obvious that the Government only want nursery education to be available to those parents who can pay for it.
Individuals who make remarks of that sort about education should not be permitted to serve. They are an affront to the democracy that they are meant to defend.
In the county's submission to the Secretary of State was the following sentence:
Merrivale has served essentially the needs of those who can transport their children to the nursery by car, from those areas lacking in nursery provision.
That was meant to be a criticism.
The county authority will today have received a petition from 800 parents, and I trust that in due course the petit ion will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Councillor Riddell has stated that the spirit of the Act can be ignored. He has said clearly that the authority will continue presenting to the Secretary of State section 12 closure notices until such time as the parents get fed up and give in. That is a circumstance that was never envisaged when the Act took its place on the statute book, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to at least insisting that there be a time gap between one closure notice and another.
The Brooksby school is opening to local authorities a more subtle and sinister way of avoiding the normal democratic processes. I am given to understand that there is another case in Lancashire where effectively a school has had its title picked up and planted some six miles away, and the school therefore technically has not been closed. In that case, no section 12 notice was required. In my case in Nottingham, the title is not six miles, but perhaps half a mile, away. Nevertheless, that school originally had access, allowing the parents to avoid the main road. That extra half mile places a dangerous main road between parents and the school.
I do not argue the case for or against this closure. I suggest that if a local authority has empty premises within its area and can merely take the title of a school and move it to another place, that is effectively a school closure—at least for the parents. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Act. Effectively, the school has been closed and no section 12 notice has been made. The parents have no right of appeal.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not under normal circumstances have accepted such practices, and I hope that he will find the time in the not too distant future to give the parents the protection that they deserve.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I have listened with great interest and care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brando-Bravo) about the saga of Merrivale school and Nottinghamshire LEA's attempts to close it. In the time available to me, I shall attempt to answer at least some of my hon. Friend's points.
I understand the anger and frustration of my hon. Friend's constituents that, despite the fact that in a short space of time I have twice rejected proposals to close Merrivale, Nottinghamshire LEA now intends to make a third attempt. My hon. Friend is free to condemn the


authority, and has vigorously done so. He will understand, however, when I say that I am not at liberty to do the same. As he knows, the holder of my office acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering proposals made under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980. This means that I am limited in what I can say about proposals which may come before me for decision, lest I am seen to be prejudicing that decision. Within these constraints I shall attempt to be as helpful as I can.
My hon. Friend knows that I first considered and rejected proposals in February 1983. In communicating my decision to Nottinghamshire LEA, the Departments letter informed the authority that I was not satisfied that the proposals would sufficiently satisfy the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by the Merrivale school.
Some months later, Nottinghamshire published new proposals, and my hon. Friend brought a deputation of parents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. On 11 April 1984, I again rejected the proposals, and the Department's letter to the authority said that, while I had considered the proposals afresh, as I was statutorily bound to do, I was still not satisfied that the proposals would fully meet the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by Merrivale.
Nevertheless, Nottinghamshire has decided to try again and, I understand, will publish new proposals early in the next school year. At this point, I imagine that my hon. Friend will be hoping that I will say that the next proposals will receive the same decision as their predecessors. I am afraid I cannot offer him that reassurance. To do so would go beyond the quasi-judicial role of the holder of my office. I am under a duty to consider each set of proposals made under section 12 on their merits at the time they come before me. I must weigh all the factors in the balance and reach the decision which I consider to be right in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It may be that the conclusion is the same as before, or there may be new arguments which are sufficiently compelling to persuade me to approve the proposals. At this stage I cannot anticipate what my decision will be.
What I can assure my hon. Friend of is that I will exercise my power under section 12(5) of the 1980 Act to "call-in" the proposals for my decision. I shall then consider the proposals very carefully and my officials will ask Nottinghamshire, in presenting its case for its proposals to explain why it judges that the current circumstances are different from the earlier ones. Moreover, as my hon. Friend knows, those affected by the proposals will have an opportunity to submit objections to the LEA within two months of the first publication of the proposals. The LEA is then under a duty to forward any objections to me together with its observations. During this process my hon. Friend can exercise his prerogative to bring some of his constituents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who, as he knows, will listen carefully to the arguments they advance.
I appreciate that this will cause a further period of uncertainty for the parents of pupils at Merrivale, and that they will again be put to the trouble and expense of attempting to save their school. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that any case those parents put to me by way of objection will be considered just as carefully as the

authority's arguments for its proposals, and that I shall come to a decision on the grounds of what I judge to be the individual merits of each case.
My hon. Friend has also raised the problems which have arisen following the destruction by fire of Brooksby county primary school. I understand that the authority decided to move the school permanently into the nearby and vacant premises of Greencroft infant school. Its reasons are that these premises can be suitably adapted for about £115,000 whilst to rebuild Brooksby would cost an estimated £386,000. Nottinghamshire does not have to effect this change via the section 12 process which would provide the opportunity for objection. Instead it is able to simply transfer the school using the powers contained in section 16(1) of the 1944 Act. It does not need to seek my approval for this unless it chooses to do so and I understand that it will not be so doing.
I now come to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the law be changed to prevent LEAs from resubmitting rejected proposals within a specified period. He already knows from the answer he received to a question on 19 June that I have no plans to seek such a change.
The Education Acts provide a system in which, subject to certain statutory constraints, it is for local education authorities to decide the pattern of education and of the reorganisation of schools best suited to local needs and circumstances and to the preferences of parents. Mine is a responsive role. I can act only when an authority or the governors of a voluntary school publish proposals; and when they do so, I can only approve proposals, reject them, or approve them with such modifications which after consultation with the proposers I judge to be desirable. I believe that the Act strikes just the right balance between the role of the holder of my office and that of the local education authority. Any legislation which prevented local authorities from republishing rejected proposals until six months, a year, or two years after my decision would upset that balance undesirably. Moreover, it would be difficult to legislate to prevent a local authority or the governors of a voluntary school making a number of changes in the detail of what was proposed and arguing that they had published different proposals.
I see three further reasons against such an amendment to the law. First, circumstances change, and can sometimes change quickly. The legislation which my hon. Friend has in mind could well impede an authority acting sensibly and speedily in changed circumstances.
Secondly the rejection of particular proposals does not always imply that I take the view that no further proposals should be published. There are occasions where I judge that action is required urgently because of falling pupil numbers, for instance, but where I am not persuaded that the published proposals are a satisfactory way forward. The change in the law which my hon. Friend has in mind would not assist matters forward in such circumstances.
Thirdly, the occasion when identical proposals are published again almost immediately after rejection are in practice very rare. My hon. Friend will know from the reply to his parliamentary question that since section 12 came into effect in August 1980 only three rejected proposals have been resubmitted in identical terms in the six months following their rejection. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases where proposals are rejected the decision by the holder of my office is accepted. I do not believe there is a problem on a scale to justify any change in the law.
I appreciate the anxieties which my hon. Friend has tonight stated on behalf of his constituents in Nottinghamshire, South. He has made their case well and in his usual way. I am sorry that I have been unable to allay those fears for him, but I hope that he will be reassured that any proposals will be considered carefully and that I will listen to any proposals put to me by objectors as well

as considering with equal care the case put forward by the county council. I also assure him that my decision will be taken as quickly as is consistent with full and proper consideration of the proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.